Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
Conservatives, as a rule, oppose affirmative action for college admissions. Very specifically, they tend to oppose "race-based" affirmative action, where students (or candidate professors) receive a favorable admissions status simply for being in a minority race, such as being an African American, or Native American. For liberals, the policy is meant to correct for past discrimination against these minority groups.
But if we follow liberal reasoning, then should there be affirmative action for conservatives on college campuses? Whether there should be conservative action for conservatives is the subject of an interesting and lively debate occurring at Front Page Mag.
Conservatives, after all, are a minority group on the vast majority of college campuses. Consider that Harvard's 45-professor strong government department includes only 3 conservatives--this is the government department we're talking about, the one place where you'd expect more varied political views. And conservative are also systematically discriminated against in the admissions game, especially if they are aspiring professors.
Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars--and a participant of the debate at Front Page--recently illuminated that last point:
I got an email from an old friend who in passing mentions an acquaintance who has a Ph.D. from Brown University; did his dissertation under one of the nation’s best-known historians; published a book with Princeton University Press, and then, unable to find an academic position, became a practicing lawyer instead. The sort of thing that happens all the time, to liberals as well as conservatives? Maybe. But the rest of the story is this. The head of a search committee who received a letter of recommendation for this man from the famous historian who had been his doctoral advisor mentioned to my friend, the candidate “has a first rate mind, is a gifted writer, but he is a conservative.”
Substitute the words black, gay, Jewish, immigrant, Marxist, or half a dozen others, and no self-respecting person would utter anything so bigoted. But this is how it is. Liberals and leftists view it as perfectly acceptable, even moral, to twist the rules of academic appointment to exclude conservatives.
And if someone complains about it, well there is always the canard of, “Oh, you want affirmative action for conservatives!” The accusation is really one of supposed hypocrisy. Conservatives are known for criticizing affirmative action for minorities but they supposedly want it for themselves.
I doubt that there are very many conservatives who are in fact guilty of that hypocrisy. Conservatives want fairness for everyone, and no rule-bending special privileges. It is a mere step toward fairness to ask universities to be mindful that they are systematically excluding from whole departments and colleges highly-qualified candidates for appointment merely because of their political views. Horowitz has asked universities to be mindful in that way, and then consider what they can do shake themselves out of a pervasive prejudice. I think he is right to do so.
Wood's interlocutor is John K. Wilson, a man who blogs about academic freedom here.
The spark which ignited their debate was Wood's recent review of David Horowitz' new book, "Reforming Our Universities: The Campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights." Horowitz, a former progressive turned conservative, has practically made it his life's mission to expose the hypocrisy of campus leftists, and reveal universities to be the bastions of liberal ideology that we know them to be. And that is what his book does.
You can read Horowitz' "Academic Bill of Rights," the subject of his book, here--it is a document that calls on universities to value and cherish the ideals that they already claim to, but of course don't, which is why the American Historical Association, the Modern Languages Association, the Modern Library Association, the American Association of University Professors, and the American Federation of Teachers all denounced the Academic Bill of Rights.
One Stanford professor said it is "a document which co-opts post-modern ideas on the situated nature of truth and knowledge, along with politically inclusive language, to counteract what Horowitz depicts as the stranglehold of progressive politics on university campuses."
What is this document that co-opts post-modern ideas on the situated nature of....yaddayaddayadda?
Wood gives it to us in a nutshell:
The “Academic Bill of Rights” itself is a 400-word eight-point list that is so blandly wholesome it could also be printed on the side of a grass-fed organic milk carton. Who would really object to universities hiring faculty members “on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise,” (article one) committing themselves not to exclude people on the basis of their “political or religious beliefs” from tenure and search committees (article two)? Who would think it seriously amiss to declare, as article three declares, that students “be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs”?
So, back to the original question at hand: campus universities being what they are, would it be hypocritical for those of us right-of-center to be proponents of affirmation action for conservatives, while opposing it for minorities? Wood argues that conservatives just want "fairness for everyone."
Affirmative action for conservatives would actively require favoring conservatives in the admissions process. But what Wood (and Horowitz) specifically want is for conservatives to not be discriminated against in the admissions process. Those are two different things. However, in order for discrimination against conservatives to cease, wouldn't Wood/Horowitz need more conservatives on the admissions' and search committees to begin with? Wouldn't Wood/Horowitz' position, in other words, require universities to correct for past discrimination? If so, wouldn't that necessitate active affirmative action for conservatives to occur before they cease being discriminated against?
If so, then is Wilson correct that while "the Academic Bill of Rights is an absolute ban on affirmative action" that ultimately "Horowitz manages to find a way to demand it"?
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
To frame any debate in terms of “affirmative action” is a red herring. Affirmative action kicks in only when the normal process fails. For instance, assume African Americans are 10% of the population. For a large institution, like a University, you assume that if normal processes work, then 10% of admitted students would be African American. That only breaks down because of failures in the process. At Ivy League schools, for instance, you have legacy admissions. Legacy admissions create a distortion to the process of who attends. Likewise, for years, you had regional biases. I attended a large midwestern high school where the most talented students usually did not apply to Ivy Leagues because they were east coast schools. You cure against systemic bias with affirmative action.
Which gets to conservatives--where are they? As a former academic I did not see these people in graduate school. I can also say that as a conservative I had no problem finding jobs. The key is that you must always do good work.
There’s the rub, what is good work in the humanities and social sciences? And further, what constitutes “conservative” work in those disciplines? Is it outcome oriented?
Jun '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
I think this is complicated by the fact that academic expertise in an area often goes hand in hand with admiration for the topic. Can a professor of economics fairly and thorougly teach Hayek if he despises his theory and worships Keynes? Maybe, but it's not likely. It sure would make sense to have a good mix of staff who favor different approaches & philosophies so the students are well served. You could easily make the argument that the dearth of conservatives in most departments deprives students of a different viewpoint that is relevant to the subject being studied.
WIth garden variety Affirmative Action, I fail to buy the argument that being taught most subjects by a person of a different race or gender or ethnicity than my own will enhance my learning or improve the classroom experience in any way. It's irrelevant.
Dec '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
StickerShock:
WIth garden variety Affirmative Action, I fail to buy the argument that being taught most subjects by a person of a different race or gender or ethnicity than my own will enhance my learning or improve the classroom experience in any way. It's irrelevant. · Dec 30 at 8:31am
But is it really irrelevant? Assume you are dealing with a course on United State’s history, does it matter who tells the story? Would the story be different if told by a member of the Sioux tribe? Is there a conservative version of the story? Is a historical narrative written by a woman likely to be different than one written by a man? How so?
But here is the kicker, in classical rhetoric we talk about a speaker’s ethos. Ethos generally refers to the character and credibility of the speaker. How does a person’s ethos affect their telling of a history? Does ethnicity and gender affect ethos? Does class? For example, if a course looked at “Wounded Knee,” would you see the course differently if taught by a member of the Sioux tribe? Or a skinny blonde white guy? Or an african american woman?
Edited on Dec 30, 2010 at 9:14amRe: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
This is really good point, but let me offer this: in the religion department at Dartmouth, many--if not the majority--of professors were atheists. And the majority of them certainly harbored a hostility toward religion itself. I would also argue that the majority of professors in the English department there were hostile to the great writers of the Western canon (& their works) and did everything in their power to sap any literary value out of the "texts" they were teaching.
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
Harry Huntington: Which gets to conservatives--where are they? As a former academic I did not see these people in graduate school. I can also say that as a conservative I had no problem finding jobs. The key is that you must always do good work.
There’s the rub, what is good work in the humanities and social sciences? And further, what constitutes “conservative” work in those disciplines? Is it outcome oriented? · Dec 30 at 7:59am
So you don't think that if someone had indicators of being conservative on their resume and application, that they'd be any less likely to be admitted to a graduate PhD program, or be admitted a new professor at a university/college?
Jun '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
Emily, I am horrified to hear that most Dartmouth English profs were hostile to works from the Western canon. I'm 52, so my English profs at Rutgers are likely retired now, but all revered the authors they covered. I would hope that a prof would find it unethical to teach Shakespeare if he hated the man's works!
Harry -- Do you think a speaker's ethos is determined soley by his ethnicity or gender? I don't. Even people raised in the same family can have completely divergent views on any number of subjects. I wouldn't assume to know the opinion of a Sioux on any issue simply based on his being a Sioux. Try asking for opinions on the IRA from Irishmen in an Irish pub. You will get opinions that run the gamut from A to Z. Character and credibility are formed by so many experiences that go beyond one's race or religion or gender. It's a very sad day if we can only respect opinions on say, abortion, from women or racism from blacks. I'd want to judge the individual's credibility on the strength of his arguments.
Dec '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed.
So you don't think that if someone had indicators of being conservative on their resume and application, that they'd be any less likely to be admitted to a graduate PhD program, or be admitted a new professor at a university/college? · Dec 30 at 10:51am
Actually I think it is very complicated. Most hiring reflects self-selection bias. That is we hire people like ourselves. Liberal academics for the most part do not target conservatives, but they tend to hire people who they think will be good colleagues. Just like fraternities and sororities pick people like themselves, so do faculties.
That said, issues are complicated by discipline. What does conservative chemistry look like? What about conservative history? Good scholars do good work. If you want to pick a bad discipline these days it is climatology because not much of it is testable in a Popperian sense. That is, you can't reasonably prove up global warming.
But what about literary criticism? What would conservative literary criticism look like?
I favor Richard Weaver (though he was not a literary critic) but I defy you to distinguish him from Kenneth Burke (a Marxist contemporary).
Dec '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
Sticker. I do not disagree on credibility, but ethnicity and gender play a role. To pick your IRA example, the story told by a Northern Irish person will play differently than the story told by an ex-British SAS. The story told about the same event will play differently. The story told about Wounded Knee will be told differently by a member of the Sioux tribe than it will be told by a pudgy soft white blonde liberal male from Ohio. You can pick which you find more credible. But experience matters. That is the reason we tend to trust people with experience. But does that mean that people with on point experience are better history teachers. No. But it does mean they will have a different perspective. More perspectives are better than fewer.
May '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Vietnam-Era-Veteran was an affirmative action category when I was teaching at an american university. Problem was, no one in the affirmative action office cared or even dreamed of enforcing such a category.
Dec '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
I should add, I agree with you on the point of abortion. We should encourage many speakers on that topic: the abortionist, the women who had abortions, and the views of those babies aborted, perhaps also women who chose not to abort babies. The problem with most discussions, is that no one offers the babies a voice or the women who chose not to abort.
But to take this back to the topic at hand, how does this factor into academics? If an economist opposes abortion, how does this affect her or his economic work? Likewise, if an historian opposes abortion, how does this affect his or her history work?
In my experience, at an academic interview, they do not ask you where you stand on abortion. They also do not ask you about where you stand on legal drugs. They usually do not ask where you go to church.
Oct '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
1) are those opposing affirmative action for minorities also in favor affirmative action for conservatives? Meaning, does Horowitz oppose affirmative action for minorities? Remember emily, the guy's a former lefty.
2) affirmative action is not something i or most conservatives want or think about a lot. I would be considered a minority in America, but i don't need special preferential treatment. I don't want to be known as someone who gets preferential treatment over others because of my race.
Edited on Dec 31, 2010 at 3:04amOct '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
Should we also have affirmative action for conservative actors in Hollywood?
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
Harry, times have changed. When I first got out of graduate school in 1977, history departments were dominated by liberals. But, as a known conservative, I was not shut out. Later, however, after 1990, if not before that time, the door closed. The cause was, I believe, that the liberals of my own generation were self-righteous in a way that their predecessors generally were not. In 1992, I published an exceedingly long, important study of the history of self-government from Greek antiquity through the American Revolution. It was universally well received. The hardback version sold out within thirteen months; the History Book Club published an edition. The three-volume paperback edition released in 1994 is still in print. I was invited to give lectures here, there, and everywhere, and I still get invitations inspired by that work. But ...
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
But when I applied for jobs -- and I applied for jobs in history year after year -- I never, from a history department, received even an interview. The book was not a partisan polemic, but it did betray my deep admiration for the American Founding Fathers, and it hinted that we have a lot to learn from them. I did manage to get an interview or two at institutions looking for political theorists. A philosophy department once invited me in. I was once approached by someone on a search committee at a major university where they were looking for a department chairman. But for an academic post in history, the door was shut. The only offer I ever received came from Hillsdale College -- an exception that proves the rule.
The key to understanding this -- and my case is by no means exceptional -- is that almost everywhere the radicals have a veto. In the humanities, if one does not pass muster with the feminists, one would be well-advised to give up.
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
For what it is worth, I do not think there should be affirmative action of any sort. Something much more radical is needed in our colleges and universities. Put simply, the power of appointments should be taken away from departments.
Technically, of course, departments have no power of appointment. In nearly all institutions, this power is held by the deans, provosts, presidents, and boards of trustees. In practice, however, since at least the 1970s, they have deferred to departments, and in departments any genuinely resolute faction can exercise a veto.
Let me add that, while the professionals in a department may conceivably be pretty good judges of sheer incompetence, they are very bad judges of the needs of students -- which is why department curricula have been emptied of content. There are English departments where it is well nigh impossible to study Shakespeare and Milton, history departments where there are almost no European historians. The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Oct '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
Excellent points by Dr. Rahe at #13, #14 and #15. During my own time in academia - which will span eleven years as of this January - I have learned to conceal my conservative political leanings. Since earning my M.A. eight years ago and teaching as an adjunct lecturer for seven years after that before beginning my studies toward a Ph.D. a year-and-a-half ago, I too have seen first-hand the impossible situation that academic conservatives face. Being an open conservative would be a serious impediment to my career at any stage, whether it be at the current point of working toward the doctorate or later applying for professorships.
However, despite concealing my political views, I am - somewhat like Dr. Rahe - undermined by my own research interests. My field of study is diplomatic and military history, long considered gauche and archaic by the vast majority of academic historians who view social history as the only type worthy of serious study.
I do not harbor any illusions of the situation improving in the near future. But I persist because I am truly excited by and interested in my specific subject of research, and refuse to give in to despair.
Edited on Dec 31, 2010 at 3:18pmDec '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
No one can reasonably deny that conservatives are discriminated against when it comes to academic hiring. What Horowitz is demanding is not an affirmative action to correct past discrimination against conservatives but the shelving of any political correctness test. Think of it as the orchestra audition test. For any audition to a symphony orchestra of any renown, the applicant sits behind a screen so that the listeners do not know the gender or skin color of the performer. They judge only on the quality of the audition, nothing more.
Jun '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
"To pick your IRA example, the story told by a Northern Irish person will play differently than the story told by an ex-British SAS. The story told about the same event will play differently. The story told about Wounded Knee will be told differently by a member of the Sioux tribe than it will be told by a pudgy soft white blonde liberal male from Ohio."
Harry, I completely disagree with this statement. You are making a huge assumption if you think all ex SAS soldiers walked away from their experiences with the same opinion. Likewise your having any preconceived notion about the opinion a Sioux would hold on any historical incident sinmply because he is a Sioux. In fact, that way of thinking exposes all that I hate about Affirmative Action used to balance our school and work environments. It lumps people into racial or gender categories and ignores the fact that we are all unique beings.
I used the IRA as an example because I know Irish siblings who have experienced armed Brits invading their childhood home who take completely opposite positions on IRA/Sinn Fein. Identical experiences, yet diametrically opposed perspectives on those expereinces.
Oct '10
Re: Affirmative Action for Conservatives?
There should be no favoritism or preferrential treatment for anybody --Liberals or Cons. Everybody should get opportunity based on ability and qualifications.