ADVERTISEMENT

A Confession of Liberal Intolerance

terrehawk

HR Heisman
Feb 23, 2011
9,602
3,824
113
A Confession of Liberal Intolerance

WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.

Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

O.K., that’s a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical.

“Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black,” he told me. “But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”

I’ve been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.

ADVERTISEMENT
“Much of the ‘conservative’ worldview consists of ideas that are known empirically to be false,” said Carmi.

“The truth has a liberal slant,” wrote Michelle.

“Why stop there?” asked Steven. “How about we make faculties more diverse by hiring idiots?”

To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don’t have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.

The stakes involve not just fairness to conservatives or evangelical Christians, not just whether progressives will be true to their own values, not just the benefits that come from diversity (and diversity of thought is arguably among the most important kinds), but also the quality of education itself. When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren’t at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.

Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

Conservatives can be spotted in the sciences and in economics, but they are virtually an endangered species in fields like anthropology, sociology, history and literature. One study found that only 2 percent of English professors are Republicans (although a large share are independents).

In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.

The scarcity of conservatives seems driven in part by discrimination. One peer-reviewed study found that one-third of social psychologists admitted that if choosing between two equally qualified job candidates, they would be inclined to discriminate against the more conservative candidate.

Yancey, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas, conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said that they would be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican.

The discrimination becomes worse if the applicant is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancey’s study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.

“Of course there are biases against evangelicals on campuses,” notes Jonathan L. Walton, the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard. Walton, a black evangelical, adds that the condescension toward evangelicals echoes the patronizing attitude toward racial minorities: “The same arguments I hear people make about evangelicals sound so familiar to the ways people often describe folk of color, i.e. politically unsophisticated, lacking education, angry, bitter, emotional, poor.”

A study published in The American Journal of Political Science underscored how powerful political bias can be. In an experiment, Democrats and Republicans were asked to choose a scholarship winner from among (fictitious) finalists, with the experiment tweaked so that applicants sometimes included the president of the Democratic or Republican club, while varying the credentials and race of each. Four-fifths of Democrats and Republicans alike chose a student of their own party to win a scholarship, and discrimination against people of the other party was much greater than discrimination based on race
“I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a conservative professor is quoted as saying in “Passing on the Right,” a new book about right-wing faculty members by Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr. That’s a metaphor that conservative scholars often use, with talk of remaining in the closet early in one’s career and then “coming out” after receiving tenure.

This bias on campuses creates liberal privilege. A friend is studying for the Law School Admission Test, and the test preparation company she is using offers test-takers a tip: Reading comprehension questions will typically have a liberal slant and a liberal answer.

Some liberals think that right-wingers self-select away from academic paths in part because they are money-grubbers who prefer more lucrative professions. But that doesn’t explain why there are conservative math professors but not many right-wing anthropologists.

It’s also liberal poppycock that there aren’t smart conservatives or evangelicals. Richard Posner is a more-or-less conservative who is the most cited legal scholar of all time. With her experience and intellect, Condoleezza Rice would enhance any political science department. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian and famed geneticist who has led the Human Genome Project and the National Institutes of Health. And if you’re saying that conservatives may be tolerable, but evangelical Christians aren’t — well, are you really saying you would have discriminated against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.?

Jonathan Haidt, a centrist social psychologist at New York University, cites data suggesting that the share of conservatives in academia has plunged, and he has started a website, Heterodox Academy, to champion ideological diversity on campuses.

“Universities are unlike other institutions in that they absolutely require that people challenge each other so that the truth can emerge from limited, biased, flawed individuals,” he says. “If they lose intellectual diversity, or if they develop norms of ‘safety’ that trump challenge, they die. And this is what has been happening since the 1990s.”

Should universities offer affirmative action for conservatives and evangelicals? I don’t think so, partly because surveys find that conservative scholars themselves oppose the idea. But it’s important to have a frank discussion on campuses about ideological diversity. To me, this seems a liberal blind spot.

Universities should be a hubbub of the full range of political perspectives from A to Z, not just from V to Z. So maybe we progressives could take a brief break from attacking the other side and more broadly incorporate values that we supposedly cherish — like diversity — in our own dominions.

I invite you to sign up for my free, twice-weekly newsletter. When you do, you’ll receive an email about my columns as they’re published and other occasional commentary. Sign up here.

I also invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook and Google+, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter (@NickKristof).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SL Hawk Fan
tumblr_nailjylZrT1s2awcjo1_500.gif
 
Thanks for sharing this. I tend to agree that diversity of thought would lead to more well-rounded students and a generally more thorough academic experience. One point though, in the following quote from the article:

The discrimination becomes worse if the applicant is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancey’s study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.

If anthropology is focused on the origins of man and the ways that we form our societies, then I, too, would be much less likely to hire an evangelical that claims the earth is only 6,000 years old, man co-existed with dinosaurs, and that we were just dropped down on earth by God, rather than evolving into the high-functioning beings we are today.
 
Thanks for sharing this. I tend to agree that diversity of thought would lead to more well-rounded students and a generally more thorough academic experience. One point though, in the following quote from the article:

The discrimination becomes worse if the applicant is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancey’s study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.

If anthropology is focused on the origins of man and the ways that we form our societies, then I, too, would be much less likely to hire an evangelical that claims the earth is only 6,000 years old, man co-existed with dinosaurs, and that we were just dropped down on earth by God, rather than evolving into the high-functioning beings we are today.

I'm pretty sure the group that thinks the world is only 6k years old is a lot smaller than you think it is.
 
I'm pretty sure the group that thinks the world is only 6k years old is a lot smaller than you think it is.
But isn't creationism a central tenet to their belief system? Or are these folks more like the "cafeteria Catholics" than I realized? Just take the stuff that you like/supports your argument that day, and ignore/forget the rest. Organized religion is so awesome.
 
I absolutely believe this to be true, and have for years. Even Obama has chided our universities for their intolerance to the other side of the free speech coin. I have the right to attack your ideas, I don't have the right to censor them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jan Itor
But isn't creationism a central tenet to their belief system? Or are these folks more like the "cafeteria Catholics" than I realized? Just take the stuff that you like/supports your argument that day, and ignore/forget the rest. Organized religion is so awesome.

An odd statement because you apparently arn't aware that the Roman Catholic church supports evolution.
 
I'm pretty sure the group that thinks the world is only 6k years old is a lot smaller than you think it is.
Maybe, but how does someone who denies evolution fit into fields like anthropology (especially physical anthropology) and some other areas that either prove or depend upon evolutionary insight?

In grad school I knew bright people who did not believe in evolution. They took the courses that taught about evolution when they needed to - and sometimes even seemed to enjoy them (one of the department's better profs taught courses covering evolution that everybody enjoyed). But they would never go into a field where they needed to teach, research or endorse evolution.

They don't - in Kristoff's disparaging phrasing - self-select because they are greedy capitalists, but they do self-select because they consider going into those fields an a priori waste of their time.

Not discrimination.

In some sciences there is no conflict (that I'm aware of). You can be an engineer, a mathematician, a nuclear physicist ... and be conservative or evangelical. Why not?

As for the social sciences, that's a bit trickier. I would think that many helping fields would draw "real" Christians. One can be a social worker, a teacher, a community organizer and easily see yourself following in Jesus' footsteps. But would those so-called Christians who reject many of Jesus' teachings - those who see the poor and disadvantaged as moochers or the 47% - be similarly interested? And would they be likely to end up teaching those fields at a university level? It makes sense that they might not - simply because they oppose or devalue them.

Not discrimination.

There may well be non-trivial discrimination in universities. Probably is. But it works both ways. Increasingly - often thanks to Koch money - economics is becoming dominated by rabid capitalists preaching puerile versions of Austrian-school-flavored libertarianism. How many Keynesians or Marxists would you find in those departments? Koch money is also invading law schools - including prestigious schools like Harvard. From which we can expect to get less pursuit of justice and more enforcement of property rights and especially (these days) intellectual property rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
To me, the conversation illuminated primarily liberal arrogance — the implication that conservatives don’t have anything significant to add to the discussion. My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.

To be fair I'm hardly a liberal but my compassion goes.

1a War Victims
1b Trafficked children
2. Conservative Scholars facing discrimination
3. Abused Chickens.

I'm in agreement for the most part, but don't get mad at me because I have more empathy for trafficked children and war victims then a guy who didn't get the job at a university because of his political views.

Again I think that's wrong and not something we should be tolerating in the US. But war victims and trafficked children are kind of facing worse circumstances.

Besides not being able to get said job will maybe teach conservative scholar to pull himself up by his own bootstraps.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: srams21
@Menace Sockeyes @cigaretteman @fredjr82
@soybean
@Huey Grey

Who am i missing that needs to read this ?
More than just them unfortunately. This has been a problem with academic world for a long time now. What's funny though, is that they're just now beginning to devour themselves because of it. Just recently there was a class President elected at a school. The person was a transgender, female to male. Guess what happened after she/he was elected? There was an immediate revolt from students, because they didn't want a 'white male' to be the class President.

You can't make this stuff up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: terrehawk
An odd statement because you apparently arn't aware that the Roman Catholic church supports evolution.
No, I was aware. Raised in the RCC, but non-practicing now. I used "cafeteria Catholics" because its the only one that I can claim experience with. My reference, though, had to do with "picking and choosing which parts of the religion they would adhere to" versus "strict following of all church doctrine."
I know, growing up in the Catholic faith, that there was a lot of cherry picking among the flock, and this hypocrisy was one of the things that caused me to become disillusioned with the Church. My understanding of Evangelicals was that they tended to be more of the strict adherence type.
 
To be fair I'm hardly a liberal but my compassion goes.

1a War Victims
1b Trafficked children
2. Conservative Scholars facing discrimination
3. Abused Chickens.

I'm in agreement for the most part, but don't get mad at me because I have more empathy for trafficked children and war victims then a guy who didn't get the job at a university because of his political views.

Again I think that's wrong and not something we should be tolerating in the US. But war victims and trafficked children are kind of facing worse circumstances.

Besides not being able to get said job will maybe teach conservative scholar to pull himself up by his own bootstraps.
Only if we are dealing with real discrimination and not what seems mostly if not entirely made up whining would I agree with your list. Until then, I would switch 2 and 3.

Chickens are people too, my friends.

Oh wait, that was corporations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT