“Them Flashy Liberals” is the latest in a series of posts I’ve written on liberal bias in American academia. Since my other posts date from my pre-TMV days, I’ll provide the links and a brief excerpt to the whole set here, starting from the earliest to the latest.
[T]here are some important differences between under-represented ideologies vs. under-represented races or genders. The reason is that while there shouldn’t, in theory, be any reason why a particular race would avoid academia, it is quite conceivable that a group based on ideological persuasion might prefer to do other things….The real question is: Are there significant numbers of Republicans who wish to enter Academia but either a) face institutional obstacles to doing so (such as biased administrators) or b) feel academia is a “hostile environment” to persons with their views? If either of those are true, then [one might be able to prove bias]. But more research needs to be done first.
“Novelty and Liberal Academia”
[A]nother factor that may act as a barrier to conservatives in academia: innovation and novelty. The basic philosophy behind conservatism is preservation of the past. Generally, their policy preferences involve either preserving the status quo, or reverting society to the near (or not so near) past. Either way, the point is, their advocacy has already happened. And having already happened, it has almost definitely already been analyzed, explained, and justified, at least to some degree….Novel arguments with broad appeal get published in more popular journals, get more attention, and look better on resumes. Liberals have more opportunities to do this than conservatives, because they are more likely to be writing on topics which have undergone less prior explication and analysis.
“Where To, Professor Zywicki?”
[H]ow do we get to that lovely panacea of diversity we lust so for so much? In my previous posts on the topic, I’ve argued that there are other explanations beyond bias that help explain the underrepresentation of conservatives in academia…Perhaps an alternative would be recasting the norm about what “acceptable” (esp. for tenure review) scholarship is. If academia was changed to be more debate oriented, with the expectation that professors would not just construct arguments but also actively engage in debate with their philosophical opponents, that could help conservatives immensely by astronomically increasing the worth of their at-present less valuable defenses of prior claims, and by giving an alternative path to academic success beyond just making new claims and blissfully ignoring the scathing criticism coming from the other side of the political divide.
And finally: “Hurting The Cause”
Speaking as someone sympathetic to the position, I can honestly say this [article by Professor Scott Gerber on liberal academic bias] was perhaps the most compelling argument for keeping conservatives (or at least Professor Gerber) out of academia entirely. In addition to the constant Limbaugh/O’Reilly-esque statements of “that’s right” and “you read that right” (“I am not making this up! I could not make this up!”), the entire piece is a collage of shoddy argumentation and barely veiled partisanship in the well-known “if it’s bad, it must be liberal” vein of discourse.
Hope y’all enjoy! Remember, these are only excerpts from a series of much longer posts, so if one piques your fancy, click the link. Also, I’d be very appreciative if you placed your comments on the most recent posting (that would be “Them Flashy Liberals” way at the top), so I can find them more easily. I look forward to your feedback!