Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Rethinking the Culture Wars -- II

August 22, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Conservatives regularly complain about the dominance of the political left on American college campuses. They are right that this is a serious problem -- for us, for our students, and for the country. But the most vocal critics are wrong about the cause of this liberal ascendancy, which is why their preferred solution, the enactment into law of an "Academic Bill of Rights" to forbid discrimination against conservatives in hiring and promotion, will not bring about any real improvement.

That professors as a group are to the left of the population as a whole cannot seriously be denied. Several recent studies employing a variety of different methodologies all reach essentially the same result: liberals outnumber conservatives on college faculties by at least five or six to one. The first reaction I usually get when I tell people I'm a Republican and a college professor is bewilderment, followed by such questions as: "How is that possible?" (usually from someone on the left who assumes that to be smart and well educated is to be liberal) and "Do they allow that these days?" (from someone on the right who assumes that academic conservatives invariably suffer discrimination).

Although some vocal conservatives complain that liberal faculty members use their classrooms to indoctrinate students and to punish dissenting students by giving them poor grades, my own experience suggests that such incidents are quite rare. In my 20-plus years as a conservative student and teacher at three strongly left-leaning institutions (Princeton, Harvard, and Colby), I have never felt discriminated against. I have only once witnessed an overtly propagandizing classroom presentation, and have I only once heard a student complain about being graded unfairly for not hewing to the professor's party line.

Overt discrimination against conservatives is not a widespread problem, I suspect, because the overwhelming majority of faculty and administrators at places like Colby are, in fact, deeply committed to the ideals of free inquiry and fair treatment for all. Like most other institutions of higher learning in the United States, Colby accepts the American Association of University Professors' Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. That statement explicitly affirms the freedom of researchers and teachers to seek the truth and of students freely to pursue the truth. That statement explicitly warns that classroom teachers "should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject."

The dominance of the political left on our campuses poses another danger, which should be much more troubling than the occasional incidents of overt discrimination or indoctrination that from time to time occur. That danger is the ever-increasing cultural marginalization of academe, which threatens intellectual impoverishment to all of us -- professors, students, and ordinary citizens alike. There was a time, not that long ago, when leading figures in higher education served as public intellectuals, addressing the vital issues of their day and receiving a respectful hearing from political leaders and the public at large. These days, if a professor from any field outside the hard sciences is being quoted in the media, odds are good that it's for the purpose of ridicule.

Academics are fond of lamenting the decline of the public intellectual, but we too often blame the public for having forsaken us without asking whether it is not we who have forsaken the public. The central problem with academe today is that we overwhelmingly speak professionally only to other academics, who share our sense of what questions are important and our wider range of values and commitments. Academe has continued to move ever further to the cultural and political left not through any overt discrimination against conservatives but through a decades-long process of self-selection.

Left-leaning professors tend to address questions that interest them, with the predictable though not intended consequence of inspiring their left-leaning students and leaving their more conservative students indifferent or disenchanted with academe. Is it any surprise that smart young liberals get Ph.D.'s and become liberal professors, while smart young conservatives tend to pursue careers in business or the other professions instead? I have no doubt that academe will never again become central to American cultural life as long as professors continue to represent such a narrow spectrum of political affiliations and religious beliefs. Nevertheless, our problems cannot be solved by party politics or by legislation and lawsuits.

Instead, those of us in the academy need to do a better job of remembering that the AAUP Statement on Academic Freedom also commits us to put the common good ahead of personal and institutional advancement. We should, therefore, strive always to speak to a wider audience beyond the inbred confines of academe. To those conservative and religious students who feel marginalized at college, I say: Stop complaining and start studying; become professors, and teach the classes you wish had been offered when you were in college.

Joseph Reisert is the Harriet S. Wiswell and George C. Wiswell Jr. Associate Professor of American Constitutional Law and chair of the Government department at Colby College. A version of this piece was originally published in Maine's Morning Sentinel.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Rethinking the Culture Wars -- II

  • Snap your fingers
  • Posted by JBM on August 22, 2006 at 7:55am EDT
  • "To those conservative and religious students who feel marginalized at college, I say: Stop complaining and start studying; become professors, and teach the classes you wish had been offered when you were in college"

    Yes, just snap your fingers and it will all be over. If only conservatives would STUDY, the entire academy would be changed.

    This piece shows no understanding of the problem infecting the universities. Plenty of people study and apply for many years on end for faculty positions. Despite stellar credentials, they are implacably shut out of the academy at the first screening stage of the application process based on non-leftist research, publications, and course work listed on their vitas. I have personally witnessed this for two decades. Studying, working, and years of applications didn't help them a bit.

  • I agree
  • Posted by Tom McCool on August 22, 2006 at 8:40am EDT
  • A perfect assessment of the problem followed by an unrealistic solution. I agree with JBM; when liberal professors control the hiring process, they will hire like-minded individuals. This should be no surprise to anyone - it happens in the corporate world all the time. No one can completely shut out their personal prejudices and biases. You hire people with whom you feel affinity. You hire people who will "fit into" your corporate culture.

    But after reading "Rethinking the Culture Wars 1," I guess I should believe that liberal college professors are smarter than the rest of us and above petty social, economic and political matters. Therefore, it's unthinkable such personal prejudices would ever figure into faculty hirings.

  • A different path
  • Posted by GoFigure on August 22, 2006 at 9:50am EDT
  • JBM, I find myself agreeing with you,in part. However, conservatives joining the liberal academic establishment is probably not the solution. Business schools currently carry much of the financial burden for most colleges and universities. Business leaders are currently concerned that the dollars they invest in supporting education create graduates who are little prepared for the world of business because their professors are not connnected to the business world. Hewitt found that CEO's place educational reimbursement as one of their least favorite benefits to employees. Spin off the business schools and higher ed goes back to what it was 100 years ago - elitist bench warmers waiting for the next revolution. For those who are truly conservatives, then you will recognize that competition is an adaptive process that results in creativity. This is why capitalist democracies have fared so much better than socialist regimes. You don't have to kill everyone who does not agree with you to make them work - you just find a way to prove that yours is the better idea and invest in it.

  • Changing Faculty
  • Posted by Jonathan Cohen on August 22, 2006 at 10:45am EDT
  • I think there is a new generation of activist faculty who look to a previous time of activism for inspiration but do not really understand the conditions that created it. Having never lived with legal segregation, they are quite at ease with the idea the racial situation in the United States is relatively unchanged. Young faculty with their own political agendas of replacing capitalism with socialism, obtaining preferential treatment for minorities or women, defeating the Republicans, destroying Israel, promoting gun control, preserving abortion rights, saving the Alaskan wilderness, blaming the world's ills on George Bush or whatever, believe they are carrying on the struggle of the sixties. But the issues have changed and the moral equations are not the same.

    Demanding lower standards for minorities and women is not the same as demanding the right to vote in Mississippi or the right to sit in the front of a public bus or eat at a lunch counter in Woolworths. And bullying a group of spineless administrators and academic colleagues does not require the kind of courage that it took for a fifteen year old girl to walk past a mob of a thousand racists to try to enter Central High in Little Rock, or go alone to the Court House in Selma Alabama to try to register to vote.

    And the war in Iraq is not Vietnam. We are not asking the same sacrifice of young people. There is no more draft, the casualties are a small fraction of what they were in Vietnam, and the voting age has been lowered to eighteen. Furthermore, the Vietnamese never threatened the US, they never harbored terrorists who had carried out attacks on Americans and they didn't sit on resources that are of paramount importance to American's well being.

    And what may be most important is that Americans are no longer being taught to be patriotic. There is a self-conscious cynicism about American society that is propagated through popular culture and through education that is different from the civic education that we got before the 1960s. The generations of Americans that produced the New Deal, defeated the Nazis and the Japanese empire, ended legal segregation, and created vast new opportunities for women were raised to believe in the goodness of their country. We weren't taught that everything about America was great but we were brought up to believe that we were a good people and it was our duty to protect our country and to correct our failings.

    It is not an accident that so many of the intellectual voices on the conservative side in the cultural wars were activists in the sixties. There continued involvement in politics is not so much a disillusionment with their past as a continuation of their idealism adapted to times and conditions that have changed.

    The author of this article has hit on something very important. The real loss to the country in the politicizing of the universities is that the conservative perspective on American life is an integral part of solving our problems. Setting lower standards for a group of people no matter how well intentioned guarantees that over time they will live up to expectations and will never catch up. Paying women to have babies out of wedlock will encourage large number of teen age girls to do so. Paying people not to work will encourage people to not look for work. Taxing people at too high a rate discourages people from being too ambitious. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have welfare or progressive taxation. But it does mean that the issues are complicated and if you ignore the unintended consequences, you exacerbate conditions that programs were designed to correct. Solving problems is not about taking sides. It is about honestly addressing them and the current ideologically conformist academy is not a good atmosphere for candor and we will all suffer because of it.

  • The Importance of Listening
  • Posted by Cristina Bruns , PhD candidate at UC-Santa Barbara on August 22, 2006 at 12:25pm EDT
  • Prof. Reisert makes an important point here that I'm convinced is crucial. We tend overwhelmingly in academic life and in broader society to interact only with those who think like us, and so we lose the capacity to hear or even imagine viewpoints other than our own without dismissing them as unfounded, narrow, simplistic, or dangerous. When we so thoroughly disrespect the very people whose views we hope to change and when we understand them so little, effective communication becomes impossible because our attempts succeed at only offending and outraging those who should be our audience. The right and the left seem to do this equally well. We all need to take a step back and listen well not only to those we disagree with, but also to how it is that we sound to those who don't already think like us.

  • Posted by John Slimic at University of Pittsburgh at Bradford on August 22, 2006 at 1:50pm EDT
  • But let's try a gedanken experiment. Assume that we have a middle-of-the-road historian who wants to teach a course of the impact of terrorism in the Middle East. His course will cover the Sicarii, the Crusaders, the Old Man of the Mountain, the Turks, the Stern Gang, and others of our time. And the criticism will be
    that its is too left (the Sicarii, the Palestinian groups)
    and too right (the Turks, the Stern Gang). So it goes untaught?

    What frosts me is that one must be EITHER a
    LIBERAL or a CONSERVATIVE in view point. There seems to be no allowable middle ground.

    There is a mild note of humor here: the assumption that the students are totally immersed in such courses and that their only disenchantment with such courses is the political tone, not the extensive reading and writing required.

  • Thank you for highlighting the problem of self-selection
  • Posted by Markus Kemmelemeier , Ph.D. at University of Nevada on August 22, 2006 at 1:50pm EDT
  • Joseph Reisert presents a voice of reason in a debate on political ideology in higher ed. Regrettably, over the last few years this debate has been hijacked by Horowitz & Co. whose central fault is not the allegation of bias per se (which would indeed require action), but the fact that there is little evidence to support such allegations. (This is not disputing that there are cases of actual discrimination against consertives--as there are against liberals). Neverthless, as Reisert says, it cannot be disputed that college faculty as a whole are more oriented toward the left, and that students with conservative political leanings are disinclined to take courses in disciplines stereotyped as "leftist". However, the latter is mainly an issue of self-selection as conservative and liberal students come to college with different goals in mind. Although the difference is not big, research shows that, at the beginning of their college careers, conservative students are more oriented toward career and professional advancement, whereas liberal students tend to want to do good in the world, broadly speaking. Because students tend to take the kinds of classes that fit their goals, it is not surprising that conservatives students are more likely to end up in business classes and liberal students in the social sciences. Perhaps liberal college faculty in the social sciences and humanities may be able to do a better job at engaging conservative students, but it is my impression that most try very hard because they are not prepared to just write-off a large group of students. Yet, given that many conservative students do not seem to believe that these faculty or the course they teach are furthering their career goals, this is an uphill battle.

  • Bravo, Jonathan Cohen!
  • Posted by jacques albert on August 22, 2006 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Thanks for your perceptive and convincing comments on the politicization of higher education--keep on bloggin'!

  • Posted by Bernardo O'Boyle on August 22, 2006 at 4:20pm EDT
  • Professor Reisert writes, "I only once heard a student complain about being graded unfairly for not hewing to the professor’s party line."

    Try this experiment. Ask your students how often they take account of the professor's political views when writing papers and essays. I've asked that question, and about 90% of the students said that they regularly do.

  • Posted by willie mink on August 23, 2006 at 4:25am EDT
  • Wow, quite a contrast here between the percentage of conservative commenters and their supposed percentage in academia.

    Where is some acknowldgement here of the truth? That is, the truth that people in higher ed got there by thinking hard, and thus lean to the left, because the left offers more complex, context-attentive answers to social phenomena than does the right, which offers simplistic bromides instead? Johnathan's blinkered (and implicitly racist and classist) list above provides many great examples of the latter.

  • Conservatives see things in Black and White
  • Posted by Daniel Pedroso on August 23, 2006 at 4:25am EDT
  • Study Indicates Leading 'Conservative' Newspapers More Biased Than Leading 'Liberal' Newspapers
    A Bushwatch.com summary of a Howard Kurtz article: "A new Harvard study says the conservative editorial pages [of the Wall Street Journal And the Washington Times] are more intensely partisan, and far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than the liberal pages [of the New York Times and the Washington Post] are to take on a Democratic administration. [The study] examined the editorial commentary on 10 Bush and Clinton episodes that were roughly comparable.... The liberal papers criticized the Clinton administration 30 percent of the time, while the conservative papers slapped around the Bush administration just 7 percent of the time. The liberal papers praised the Clintonites 36 percent of the time, while the conservative papers praised the Bushies 77 percent of the time. One more set of numbers: The liberal papers criticized Bush 67 percent of the time; the conservative papers criticized Clinton 89 percent of the time."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A20093-2003Aug5&notFound=true

    Study discovers Conservatives see things in "Black and White"
    Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

    - Fear and aggression
    - Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
    - Uncertainty avoidance
    - Need for cognitive closure

    Terror management
    "From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.
    http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/268673.shtml

    50 percent of U.S. says Iraq had WMDs
    By Jennifer Harper
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    July 25, 2006

    Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent last year, a Harris poll finds. Pollsters deemed the increase both "substantial" and "surprising" in light of persistent press reports to the contrary in recent years.
    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060724-110410-8309r.htm

    The propaganda works better on conservatives. Soon the adjuncts will have to give classes on-line and Universities will have to take standardized tests like grade school children. The propaganda program will have an “adult education” program to “persuade” any dissenter. Welcome to the Matrix.

    David Horowitz

    David Horowitz is a right-wing writer and political activist. He is the co-founder and president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC) (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture), a Los Angeles-based right-wing advocacy organization that produces the online journal FrontPage Magazine. The organization also produces DiscovertheNetworks.org, a website that purports to be a "Guide to the Political Left." DHFC's legal arm, the Individual Rights Foundation (IRF), has fought to reestablish the cross in the Los Angeles County seal and defended the right of the Boy Scouts of America to bar homosexuals.

    Horowitz has lashed out at at his critics by labeling them "racist." He describes himself as a defender of the rights of minorities, including "Christians and white males." In return for defending these "minorities," Horowitz earns hundreds of thousands of dollars per year through DHFC and "receives about $5,000 for each of the 30 to 40 campus speeches he gives each year." DHFC receives significant support from right-wing foundations. One foundation that has given millions to Horowitz's organization often gives to causes that provoke racial conflict. His center recently paid $300,000 to a longtime political operative who is known for his tactics of race-baiting in Republican campaigns.

    Horowitz is also the founder of Students For Academic Freedom (SAF), an organization that describes itself as "a clearing house and communications center for a national coalition of student organizations whose goal is to end the political abuse of the university and to restore integrity to the academic mission as a disinterested pursuit of knowledge." SAF promotes Horowitz's "Academic Bill of Rights" and lists instances of alleged anti-conservative bias on campuses across the United States. When Media Matters documented that Horowitz and his followers' charges of anti-conservative bias were unsubstantiated, Horowitz unleashed a contradictory mess of unfounded allegations, retractions, corrections of retractions, and retractions of corrections.

    Horowitz's latest book is The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (Nelson Current, August 2006). Horowitz has written or edited more than a dozen other political books, including The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Regnery, January 2006), Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Regnery, 2004), How to Beat the Democrats -- And Other Subversive Ideas (Spence Publishing, 2002) and Hating Whitey -- and Other Progressive Causes (Spence Publishing, 1999).

    Quotes from Horowitz
    "[ABC News anchor] Peter Jennings is dead, may he rest in peace. Lest we forget, however, while he was alive Peter Jennings did considerable damage to the cause of civilization and human decency by his sympathy for Jew-hating terrorists and their supporters." [8/8/05]
    Democrats, media are "getting Americans killed in Iraq ... because of their pathological hatred of George [W.] Bush." [11/1/04]

    "Liberals do have a big problem with decent, law-abiding American Christians, and their problem -- judging from [PBS Frontline documentary] "The Jesus Factor" -- is evidently their religious faith. ... God help liberal bigots who have no faith but themselves and whose prejudice and hatred is reserved for those who defend them." [5/4/04]
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200511110013

    Proven liar Horowitz said Media Matters ignores the facts
    David Horowitz, editor in chief of the right-wing website FrontPageMag.com, accused Media Matters for America of "ignoring the actual facts" and "repeat[ing]" "slander." His accusation came in response to a November 30 Media Matters item headlined "In retaliation, David Horowitz labeled Al Franken 'racist.'" But Media Matters has documented Horowitz's own extensive record of disregarding facts.

    Even Horowitz's December 1 FrontPageMag.com column, in which he leveled his accusation, opened with an outright falsehood: Horowitz asserted that Media Matters has received funding from billionaire philanthropist George Soros. To date, neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated.

    Media Matters has compiled many of Horowitz's lies and baseless slanders:
    Horowitz baselessly accused Senator John Kerry, author and documentarian Michael Moore, and The New York Times of "getting Americans killed in Iraq." (11/1/04)

    Horowitz alleged that Kerry's election to the presidency would "vastly encourage terrorist forces." As Media Matters documented, while Horowitz and other conservative media figures adopted the Republican claim that terrorists would prefer a Kerry victory in November, there is a conspicuous lack of evidence to support it. (9/28/04)

    Horowitz claimed that during a debate more than 30 years ago on The Dick Cavett Show, Kerry indicated he "basically was happy to see" the communists win the Vietnam War. Kerry said nothing of the sort. In fact, a December 12, 1971, Boston Globe article quoted him expressing exactly the opposite sentiment: "I don't like Communists. In fact, I hate them. I hate all totalitarians. I'm totally dedicated to representative, pluralistic, free democracy." (8/3/04)

    Horowitz joined other conservatives in repeating the claim that MoveOn.org had compared President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. As the non-partisan Columbia Journalism Review's website The Campaign Desk noted in its May 27, 2004, "Distortion" column, while "at least one [ad comparing Bush to Hitler] was posted briefly on the organization's website ... MoveOn quickly removed it and disassociated itself from the offending ads." (5/28/04)

    Horowitz falsely claimed that liberals "have a big problem" with those who have faith and believe in God. As Media Matters noted at the time, various polls show that liberals do have faith and do believe in God. (5/4/04)

    Yet Horowitz wrote in his December 1 column:
    Ignoring the actual facts in these two episodes [in which Horowitz has made racist comments], Brock's site merely repeats the slanders, revealing the sick condition of what passes for liberal culture where these viruses of slander and defamation are apparently self-perpetuating.

    Horowitz is the author of several books, including Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes (Spence, 1999). Frank H. Wu, author of Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White (Basic Books, 2003), wrote an April 30, 2000, review (available via Nexis) of Hating Whitey in
    The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education.

    Wu wrote:
    His [Horowitz's] condemnation of single black mothers, even if his empirical data about the likely poverty of their families were to be accepted, is cursory and harsh. It is likely to encourage racial stereotyping and reinforce patterns of unproductive behavior.

    However perverse or offensive Horowitz's extreme rhetoric, it is admirable as an example of the triumph of right-wing commentators in appropriating the language of the civil rights movement. Instead of African Americans or the working class being oppressed by racial discrimination, the angry white males or "model minority" Asian Americans become the innocent victims of affirmative action.
    [...]

    Perhaps book review editors should devote more attention to Horowitz. Reviews would expose and weaken his views. Isolation allows him to pretend martyrdom. Readers who may be interested in Horowitz deserve better. To abandon his audience to him would be the wrong reaction.
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010006

  • Georges Sada
  • Posted by JBM on August 23, 2006 at 7:35am EDT
  • Daniel,

    What evidence do you have that Georges Sada and his colleagues are lying about Iraq's pre-war relocation of WMDs? Why do you posit that eye witnesses to the relocation are lying?

  • Posted by willie mink on August 23, 2006 at 7:40am EDT
  • Jeez Daniel, who's going to read all that??

  • Cultural marginalization?
  • Posted by Jack Olson on August 27, 2006 at 1:05pm EDT
  • According to Prof. Reisert, the main risk of college faculties and administration hiring such a disproportionate number of politically liberal professors and staff is what he calls cultural marginalization. I take the term to mean that the rest of the country will ignore the views of college professors and administrators because those views are so predictably leftist that the public regards them more as the result of political conformity than intellectual reasoning.

    Prof. Reisert doesn't say who is to do the marginalizing, the liberals inside the colleges or the conservatives outside. As one of the latter, I feel entitled to point out that it was the former group who hired Ward Churchill. When his inflammatory remarks about the World Trade Center attacks drew attention to his academic credentials, the liberal professors defended him and the conservatives outside the colleges exposed him as a contemptible fraud. Amateur historians exposed the fraud of Bellesiles' "Arming America" after his professorial peers reviewed his work and awarded it the Bancroft Prize. It was liberals inside the colleges who put these politically correct academic frauds onto college faculties, promoted them, and gave one of them a prestigious award. How are such things possible unless political correctness has made the colleges intellectually corrupt?

    If the cultural marginalization Reisert warns of is actually happening, the liberals who control college hiring and tenure decisions are the true authors of it. It's possible, of course, that the kind of people who would hire a terrorist like Bill Ayers as a college professor would regard the public's contempt for them as merely anti-intellectual. To answer that contempt with arrogance will accelerate the marginalization Reisert wrote about, so maybe the danger is even closer than he said.

  • The Plural of Anecdote...Well, You Know
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on August 28, 2006 at 8:35am EDT
  • It seems that even conservative critiques of the academy are unacceptable to our friends at ACTA unless they toe the party line. This morning, the ACTA blogger favors us with a lengthy dismissal of Professor Reisert's article because he dares to suggest that "overt discrimination against conservatives is not a widespread problem". While the ACTA blog typically drips with contempt for liberal defenders of the academy, it turns out that the its angriest invective is reserved for those conservative academics who are perceived as traitors to the cause. An example:

    Professor Reisert's analysis, according to the ACTA blogger, "is a thoroughly bizarre instance of egocentrically-rationalized doublethink..." So there!

    The blogger, as usual, excoriates Reisert for "ignor[ing] broad, established patterns of discrimination against campus conservatives", backing up this assertion by linking to FIRE's website. And, yes, out of the many thousands of colleges and universities in the United States employing hundreds of thousands of professors and administrators, there are, indeed, occasional instances of "viewpoint discrimination". But, as Professor Reisert correctly puts it, "such incidents are quite rare", and the FIRE website, read properly, demonstates that.

    ACTA, of couse, specializes in collecting anecdotes and claiming that they conclusively prove some point or another. Anti-conservative bias is widespread! Right-wing professors are systematically persecuted! There are dozens of "Ward Churchills" on campuses across the nation! It is an embarrassingly weak form of argumentation, but it apparently appeals to some relatively uninformed state legislators and TV "journalists".

    By ACTA's "reasoning", I might just as easily point out how many conservative professors hold tenured positions at Ivy League institutions. Surely, the presence of so many right-wingers at the top of the academic heap proves that whatever viewpoint discrimination occurs on college campuses favors conservatives. I mean, doesn't it? After all, you can't argue with me--I've got anecdotes!

  • List?
  • Posted by JBM on August 29, 2006 at 7:15am EDT
  • "By ACTA’s “reasoning", I might just as easily point out how many conservative professors hold tenured positions at Ivy League institutions."

    Go ahead: Crunch those numbers.

  • JBM's short riposte
  • Posted by jacques albert on August 30, 2006 at 5:50am EDT
  • You're right, JBM; we want hear some names and numbers from Unapologetically Tenured before he shambles back to the his faculty club wing chair.

  • correction (apologies)
  • Posted by jacques albert on August 30, 2006 at 5:50am EDT
  • strike the last "the" from my last post here