Why Tilt?
Ezra Klein responds to my post linking to a study on college faculty and their alleged liberal bias. Klein argues that “as you climb up the rungs of academia, where internal coherency and intellectual rigor become values to live and die by, you find fewer Republicans.” In other words, according to Klein, conservatives are stupid. After all, “At the places the most intelligent and informed people work, even more of them turn out to be liberal.” To his credit, Klein is open and honest about his disdain for conversative smarts; not everyone is.
It may come as no surprise that I reject this notion. To begin with, it assumes academia houses “the most intelligent and informed people.” In fact many of the most intelligent and informed people accept lucrative positions in the private sector, high level government positions, or elsewhere. It is often said that “those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.” I don’t believe that’s a universal aphorism, but there’s certainly some truth to it. Many of the best economists are on Wall Street, not in the ivory tower, and many of the best writers publish regularly for a salary rather than grade student work.
It’s naive and shortsighted to assume academia houses “smarter” people, especially when it offers a lower salary compared to private sector positions. Professors forgo the capitalist dream of achieving wealth through the marketplace and instead rely upon the government and private contributions for support. A party and ideology that espouses to minimize that support isn’t all that appealing. After all, the marketplace doesn’t have much room for “peace studies.”
Interestingly, when the Left sees under-representation of minorities and women in the workforce, it cries discrimination and bigotry. But for some reason under-representation of conservatives is perfectly acceptable in academia. Which is it – does representation reflect skill and worth, or bigotry? I don’t believe quotas are an answer to the problem of liberal bias and imbalace in colleges, just as they are not the best answer to overcoming private sector bias and discrimination. Too often consistency takes a hike.
Update: Klein offers an update: “I should clarify that I don’t believe liberals are necessarily smarter than conservatives — I’ve met some morons and geniuses among both breeds. What I do believe, or am at least considering, is that the heavy consumption of information tilts consumers towards the liberal end of things.” I still disagree, for reasons above, and reasons Musgrave articulated even better. Aside from this post, though, Klein’s blog appears to be a good one worth bookmarking.
6 Responses to “Why Tilt?”
It depends upon which academia you might care about. Privately funded schools should remain free to do about whatever they want. Government schools need to be freed from ideological binders and pulpits, by law, and by lawsuits from those injured by the current malpractice of instruction, with damages assessed against people, not institutions. Luke Messer’s bill helps Indiana.
I think it probably has a lot to do with the subject matters encompassed by academia. I have a hard time believing that economics departments or physics departments are made up primarily of lefties. On the other hand, I can’t see a conservative dirtying himself with a subject like women’s studies or Jewish Mongolian Lesbian studies or the like.
And then you have the Historians. A deep knowledge of history is going to give you a deep skepticism of authority and, thus, make you skeptical of conservatism which, I submit, is more authoritarian in nature. (Don’t give me Stalin or Mao. They were no liberals.)
Considering Luke’s listed sponsored bills include 3 that touch the court system and 1 that deals with IDs at polling sites, one has to ask what Luke’s bills have to do with anything education related.
I went to the Klein piece in which you mention that he believes that “conservatives are stupid.” I didn’t read that he believes that. Your assertion wouldn’t be intentionally inflammatory, would it? And, while I’m asking questions, do you really believe that conservatives are victims of the same discrimination that women and minorities have experienced? May I observe that conservatives often don the victim cloak?
I interpreted it that way. But I’ve linked to it, so readers can decide for themselves. And no, I don’t believe conservatives are the victims of discrimination.
“Interestingly, when the Left sees under-representation of minorities and women in the workforce, it cries discrimination and bigotry. But for some reason under-representation of conservatives is perfectly acceptable in academia. Which is it – does representation reflect skill and worth, or bigotry?”
The left does cry bigotry/discrimination a lot, and sometimes its been wrong. But I think you over-simplify here. Either example of underrepresentation you describe, or both, or neither, could be the product of discrimination. They all don’t have to have the same cause.
And once you’ve made a decision on one, you shouldn’t make up your mind that the other has the same cause, in my opinion. (I.E. while a shortage of women in the workforce may be a result of lack of skill or worth, not discrimination, you can’t infer that the same fact about the lack of conservatives in academia).