In this essay on the dearth of conservatives in higher education, the possible oppression of conservatives will be considered. I am obviously not the first to advance this hypothesis, but it is certainly worth new consideration. The idea is a familiar one: a group is being unjustly discriminated against in an institution and this accounts for the under-representation of this group. In this case, the group is not defined by ethnicity, religion, or gender but by political ideology.
The claim that conservatives are victims of oppression/discrimination might be met with snorts of derision or even the assertion they are getting what they deserve. After all, conservatives have generally not expressed concerns about the exclusion of other groups. As such, it could be said that their concern is not based on a principle of fairness but on their lamentation that they are not dominating or at least a major force in higher education. The logical reply to this assertion is that their apparent inconsistency and their allegedly selfish motives are not relevant to whether their exclusion is just. After all, if it could be proven that feminists did not care about fairness and are motivated by selfishness, then it would not follow that they are wrong to claim that the underrepresentation of women in various fields is wrong. To believe otherwise would be to fall into a classic ad hominem, that a person’s motives or bias must discredit their claim. It is, of course, morally fine to point out inconsistencies between claimed ideals and actual behavior—but that is another matter. As such, the claim that conservatives are being unjustly excluded from higher education cannot be dismissed so quickly. The challenge is, of course, to provide evidence.
As noted in earlier essays, conservatives tend to respond to claims about oppression or exclusion by asserting low representation is due to the allegedly excluded being either uninterested or incapable. The same could obviously be done to their claim of discrimination, a matter discussed earlier in this series of essays. But the focus now is on trying to make the case for the claim of discrimination and I will set aside that counter and turn to considerations of evidence.
One obvious source of evidence is complaints from conservative faculty. This does occur and should be taken as seriously as any other claim of discrimination. Christopher Freiman, a fellow philosophy professor, has contended that a significant percentage of faculty have admitted they would discriminate against conservative applicants and he also points to claims of their being underplaced and fired at a higher rate than liberal faculty for political speech. This is the same sort of evidence that would be advanced to support a claim of discrimination against women or minorities and hence should be given the same sort of due consideration. To do otherwise would be mere prejudice and inconsistent with the moral principle that discrimination is wrong. That said, as conservatives will note when it involves others, claims about discrimination need not be actual evidence of discrimination. Ironically, the same tools and methods that conservatives have used to dismiss concerns about discrimination can be applied to their claims. However, to use them as weapons with the express intent of dismissing evidence would be a moral error—rather, the evidence should be examined neutrally with the tools of science and logic with a goal of determining the truth, whatever it might be.
Since I do not have the resources to conduct a proper large-scale investigation, I will begin with my own experiences. It must be noted that this entails a limited sample size and biasing factors. That said, I have served on or chaired numerous search committees over the years and not once was there an inquiry into the political ideology of the candidates. The job description, ranking standards and questions included nothing about political ideology and hiring decisions were made based on academic qualifications. As would be suspected, I and all the other members of the committees had to attend meetings about how to run job searches and the bulk of the meetings were spent on instructions on how to avoid discrimination (and lawsuits). Speaking with other colleagues across the country, no one has ever mentioned anything that would be evidence of discrimination against conservatives in their hiring practices. It should be noted that there was never a directive to seek ideological diversity in hiring—mainly because, as I said, ideology was never considered as a factor (positive or negative) in the hiring process.
There are a few obvious replies to my alleged evidence. One counter is to assert that I am lying—if I was discriminating against conservatives, I would surely deny it and carefully conceal all evidence. That is a fair point: as feminists and others have long pointed out, discriminators are inclined to lie about their discrimination. Those who think I am a liar will obviously not be swayed by my claims that I am not. Those would just be more lies to hide my other lies, at least in their eyes.
A second counter is that while I claim that we did not consider ideology or even inquire about it, we could surely infer a person’s ideology from their research, presentations and publications. For example, if someone gave a presentation entitled “reflections on the evils of capitalism within the context of cultural Marxism ideology” or “a stalwart defense of conservative values within the context of a biased academy”, then we could surely infer their likely ideology. This does have some merit: candidates can, of course, send signals to prospective employers via their research, presentations and publications. The influence can even be unconscious, as some claim occurs when people are biased against applicants with female or minority sounding names. The use of ideology signaling via these means is something I think is worth investigating—especially its potential for biasing (unconsciously or not) search committee members. As such, I would recommend this a research project—it would make an excellent subject for a dissertation.
A third obvious counter is that even if I am being honest, my experience is limited to one institution and a limited number of search committees. As feminists and others have long argued, the absence of evidence for discrimination in some cases is not evidence of the absence of discrimination in others. Of course, it is also the case that evidence of discrimination in some cases is not automatically evidence of broad or systematic discrimination. What is needed, then, is a proper investigation of the claim of discrimination. Fortunately, or unfortunately, discrimination against women, minorities and others has resulted in the creation of tools and methods to ferret out discrimination and these should be neutrally applied to see if there is evidence of the systematic oppression of conservatives within higher education. If it is occurring, then it can be addressed with methods analogous to those used to address discrimination against women, minorities and otehrs. For example, job descriptions might start including “we encourage conservatives to apply” and affirmative action programs might be created for avowed conservatives interested in academic careers.
A couple of random thoughts here, in no particular order …
“After all, conservatives have generally not expressed concerns about the exclusion of other groups. As such, it could be said that their concern is not based on a principle of fairness but on their lamentation that they are not dominating or at least a major force in higher education. The logical reply to this assertion is that their apparent inconsistency and their allegedly selfish motives are not relevant to whether their exclusion is just.”
I think I’d draw my line in a different place than yours. First of all, I don’t think this is about “fairness” at all. From a sociological or demographic point of view, I think you’re correct – that for me, as one who holds many conservative values, having “diversity” on a campus is less important than having “excellence” – unless you are talking about a diversity of ideas and challenging thoughts.
If, for example, you were to have a faculty of five science professors in a department, I would place their credentials and their research above their ethnicity or gender in terms of hiring. Others don’t see it that way – and place a high value on what are now called ALANA candidates. An argument can be (and has been) made that for minority students, having a faculty member who “looks like them” is important to their success and career goals. While I confess that this isn’t something that naturally occurs to me, I can see some value in it.
However, “conservative” is not an ethnicity, it’s not a gender, it’s not a race – it’s a way of thinking, it’s an ideology, and as such can and should be an integral part of an education. I’m on thin ice here, because I don’t accept the notion that “all conservatives think alike” – but I will say that to have a consensus of ideas in an academic environment, with no challenge to those ideas, dilutes the environment substantially – replacing disruptive critical thinking with “safe spaces” and complacency in comfort zones.
I think it’s probably a good thing to have both left-leaning and right-leaning campuses around the country – it’s good to have choices – but that kind of lack of diversity of thought can be very dangerous academically. I did a little web-searching for “Liberal” and “Conservative” colleges, and I was disappointed but not surprised to read the #1 student review for Mills College in California …
“For me, Mills is a very diverse community of liberal minded individuals where individuality is accepted and encouraged, unless you’re conservative. The Economics department, where I am at, the professors are great and the program is put together. “
(Not sure what this student means by “put together”, either – but we can easily surmise that the take on economics in his major is quite leftist. Why do I make this assumption? “Individuality is accepted and encouraged, unless you’re a conservative” followed by “The professors are great”. Highly unlikely they would be that well regarded if they were conservative. Are they able to separate their political ideology from their subject matter? I’ll leave that question alone – call it rhetorical).
You and I attend the same seminars on diversity, we learn all about “microaggressions” and “unconscious bias”. – ideals held very close on the left, and concepts that are highly pervasive on college campuses. As you say, there is no stated policy that discriminates against any political stripe any more than there are policies regarding the hiring of minorities or members of certain ethnic groups – but a statement like the one made by this student is widely accepted. Substitute any word for “conservative” in that review, and we’d see Mills scrambling to issue apologies all over the place after removing both the comment and the student.
And actually, the policies about the hiring of minorities or various ethnic groups do exist. If a university policy states that they are committed to diversity and actively seek ALANA candidates, isn’t that the same as saying that they are less interested in hiring white males?
But I digress. As I said above, I don’t think this is about “fairness” or “diversity” from an ethnic, demographic, or sociological point of view.
The second part of that student’s statement is even more troubling – that within the context of the overt prejudice against conservatives, he talks about his major – economics. If students live in an environment where that kind of attitude towards conservative thought is seen to be OK, where will these economics students learn about Adam Smith or Milton Friedman? One does not need to agree with the economic theories of these men, but the theories should be presented by someone who doesn’t have a prejudice against conservatives, or who is not afraid to challenge locally accepted realities.
“the claim that conservatives are being unjustly excluded from higher education cannot be dismissed so quickly.”
Well, again, to me it’s not about “justice”, it’s about “education”, which means diverse opinions and challenging thoughts, and real critical thinking. It’s about sitting that young singer down and telling her that it’s OK to be “uncomfortable” with song lyrics, but that the world isn’t going to revolve around making her feel “safe”. It’s about a tenured professor with a 30 year career not being afraid to express his own ideas about music, musicology, and an homage to his own mentor. It’s about having a complete discussion about why there aren’t more women in science, without having to tiptoe around some hypotheses because it’s politically incorrect, or worry about being removed as a university president because the institution doesn’t tolerate that kind of talk …
The lack of ideological diversity in academia is not unfair to conservative would-be professors. Well, maybe it is, but we don’t really care. We’ll happily go elsewhere – it’s in our DNA. We are not “social justice warriors”, and, while I can’t speak for anyone else, if I saw an ad that read, “we encourage conservatives to apply”, I’d run the other way.
Rather, it’s unfair to students. Protecting students from challenging thoughts and immersing them in a world of like-minded individuals is not education. Allowing a student to post such hateful remarks and letting him think it’s OK to think that way is a step backward.
It is, as you noted, reasonable to argue that addressing the disparity is not a matter of fairness or equality, but that the academy is intellectually restricted. While it can be said that there are diverse ideas, the argument could be made that these ideas are a diversity of left-leaning ideas. To use an analogy, it would be like saying Noah’s Ark would be diverse if it was well-stocked with a variety of dogs. I was fortunate enough to get a fairly broad education in political philosophy across the spectrum; apparently that is less common these days.
I am still, however, concerned that conservative academics are being treated unfairly in terms of hiring and retention. This is not a matter of being PC, but because I hold to the importance of justice and merit. I have the same concern about women and minorities in my own field: I have seen very capable women and minorities excluded because of blatant and open sexism and racism. If I am opposed to those injustices, I must be consistent and extend the same concern to conservatives who are getting screwed over by liberal bias.
True, students need to get a range of competing ideas, if only to see how the clash of ideas is supposed to work. So, I also favor intellectual diversity in the academy that goes beyond just flavors of the left.
” One counter is to assert that I am lying—if I was discriminating against conservatives, I would surely deny it and carefully conceal all evidence. “
I think that’s a little extreme. I’m sure you attend the same meetings I do regarding unconscious bias. I leave these meetings convinced that I’m some major misogynistic racist who lives in a world completely unaware of my failings.
Seriously, though – overt discrimination in hiring or promotion is certainly legislated against and none of us engage in it as a matter of practice – but it’s there. I know that you are pretty far to the left of me politically and hold very strongly to your beliefs – and I really do think that you are completely unaware of your own inherent bias toward conservatives. That has been at the root of my anger and frustration over these last few posts. You are certainly not alone – but the beliefs you hold about conservatives and conservative values are sometimes just as ridiculous as Jews having horns. You were raised with those beliefs, or you were educated with them – they are supported in your workplace and by the news you read and the feeds on Facebook. Your belief that “Conservatives are anti-science” is unshakable. Your belief that Conservatives only want to serve the rich at the expense of the poor is deeply seated within you.
I don’t mean to attack or make this personal – you are just another example of the kind of thought (or lack of it) that I see every day – and I mention it only to underscore my point that no, I don’t think you or anyone else is lying about discrimination – nor do I think you are aware of it.
I don’t think it’s malicious – but it exists.
“while I claim that we did not consider ideology or even inquire about it, we could surely infer a person’s ideology from their research, presentations and publications.”
Well, it’s actually more prevalent and overt than that. I have served on search committees where one of the required elements of the application package is a “diversity statement”, asking the candidate to expound on how he or she can “contribute to the commitment to diversity” on campus.
This may seem like an innocent question, but it’s actually a pretty sinister no-win for most. What do they expect candidates to say? “Well, although I am white, some of my best friends are black. No, really – I think the world should be diverse …”
If I were applying for a job at this time and I had to write that, I think that my honest answer would disqualify me.
“My focus is on excellence, on achievement, on challenging thought that rattles complacent would-be intellectuals from their comfy chairs. I don’t think that race or ethnicity fit into that at all – there are smart people of all stripe, and if we stay focused on excellence and critical thinking without worrying about diversity, I believe that diversity will naturally happen. I think that affirmative action breeds discontent and discrimination – having the opposite effect than intended.”
The winners, of course, are the beneficiaries of affirmative action and the push for ALANA candidates. {“As a Native American, I think that my perspective on the integration of tribal culture will … “). Of course, that may very well be true and indeed valuable – but somewhat irrelevant if we are looking for someone to teach computer programming.
That’s why I object so strongly to your suggestion that some form of conservative “affirmative action” be applied. I think that sort of thing leads to finger-pointing and whispers and tokenism.
We actually had a highly qualified applicant omit this statement from his packet. His qualifications were way above any others – his achievements in industry, his academic reputation, his conference presentations and published work were really, really, good. We called him and told him that we were interested in him, but could not proceed without that statement – and his answer was, “Well, if that’s the kind of thing you’re concerned about, over and above everything else I’ve done, then I don’t think this is the place for me. I withdraw my application.
Some liberals might naturally conclude that this guy was a racist or xenophobe, but his reputation belied that accusation. I knew exactly who and what he was – he was a conservative who didn’t have the time or energy to play that kind of game. And so, he was successfully weeded out – the discrimination was neatly disguised as a missing checkbox under “application complete”.
Maybe more sinister was the extreme discomfort I felt on that committee – tenure or no tenure, I did not have the balls to speak up to point out the inherent bias in that requirement. That conversation would escalate rapidly to the dean, to HR, and maybe to the Provost. And, within the sea of unconscious bias inherent in the system, one very plausible outcome could be that I end up with the scarlet “R” sewn to my shirt.
“What is needed, then, is a proper investigation of the claim of discrimination.”
You won’t see these claims. The “victim mentality” approach to social engineering is a left-wing construct. The irony is that if conservatives ever did start filing complaints, identifying ourselves as “victims”, and pushing for increased legislation to include “Political Conservatism” as a protected class, we would cease to be conservative.
My choice, as it always is, was between “fighting the good fight for ground that has little to do with my own research, scholarship, or field of expertise” and “letting it go so I can leave them to their lives and I can get on with mine”. Trust me, it’s a constant ethical dilemma for me, but I almost always choose the latter – lest I end up like that poor (or maybe lucky?) music professor.
So the net result is that conservatives, either by unconscious hiring bias, hostility in the workplace, the ability to succeed in places where their ideologies are more widely accepted, the ability to maximize earnings elsewhere, or some other reason, tend to stay away from academia. And this results in an imbalance of critical thought at institutes of higher learning.
It’s not about “lamentation that they are not dominating or at least a major force in higher education” as though it were some kind of competition for the minds of the students. It’s about creating a space for the open exchange of ideas, no matter how uncomfortable or challenging. It’s about rattling cages, yanking people from their intellectual or ideological comfort zones. And a homogeneous faculty by definition is unable to do that.
As higher education becomes more liberal, it becomes “safer”, because there are more and more people with the same ideology. Contributing to this safety, of course, is an increasingly heavy reliance on political correctness – which is another way of saying “suppression of ideas we don’t like”.
This is why I insist upon making a clear distinction between “higher education” and “institutes of higher education”. The two are distinctly different.
True, the diversity question is a common one. As you noted, it is not a “how would you address the diversity of ideas on campus?” question.
Well, this would seem to create a problem: conservatives cannot investigate or fight discrimination against themselves because then they would not be conservatives. While that would seem ideologically consistent, it would also seem to concede the academy to the liberals.
That said, the idea that most students crave intellectual safe-spaces seems to be largely a media construct. Even if it were a big thing, that is exactly what students don’t need. I think that there is a confusion between students wanting to not be treated badly or harassed and the desire to not be exposed to challenging ideas. I think students should be safe from abuse in the classroom and on campus, but that they need to be exposed to “dangerous” ideas. For example, a female grad student should not have to put up with a professor saying “woman can’t do philosophy” and trying to drive her out of the program, but she should not expect to have the classes only contain feminist theories she likes.
conservatives cannot investigate or fight discrimination against themselves because then they would not be conservatives
What? Are you saying that conservatives are defined by your perception that they discriminate?
Also, as I posted below, I have a comment to Coffee Time that is pertinent to DH and TJ as well stuck in your spam filter.
I’m just agreeing with DH:
“I am still, however, concerned that conservative academics are being treated unfairly in terms of hiring and retention. This is not a matter of being PC, but because I hold to the importance of justice and merit.”
“I have the same concern about women and minorities in my own field: I have seen very capable women and minorities excluded because of blatant and open sexism and racism. If I am opposed to those injustices, I must be consistent and extend the same concern to conservatives who are getting screwed over by liberal bias.”
These are valid concerns, and I suppose that it is to your credit that you have them. I have similar concerns, but as in so many issues like this I’m very cynical about our (human) ability to manage them through policy or legislation without creating some unintended result that may be worse, or failing to achieve that which we intend.
I think that Affirmative Action and other anti-discrimination laws, while well-intended, have created resentment and discontent in our society; those who have had to work hard for what they have are often quite surprised to learn that they are among the “privileged”, They develop animosity toward the beneficiaries of those measures taken in the misguided belief that the playing field can be artificially leveled, by virtue of some kind of social-engineering Zamboni. There’s a new kind of racism that develops from that – people who have never had any antipathy towards other cultures, classes, or communities suddenly find a growing bitterness toward them – a result more borne of social engineering than inherent bias based on differences.
I have experienced this myself. It’s not something I’m necessarily proud of, but an interesting point of discussion. (Also a topic I avoid discussing because of the rush of others to judge … a symptom of the world in which we live).
Several years ago, I had an orthopedic issue for which I needed to see a specialist. I had new-ish insurance, and I had to find a new orthopedist within my network. I made an appointment with someone on the list – and I was very surprised at my own feelings of unease when I arrived at this doctor’s office and discovered that he was black.
Was I really a bigot? Did I have some deep-seated belief that African Americans were somehow inferior, a belief that only surfaced when it came to issues of my health?
My feelings were not racist at all. They were very consistent with my cynicism toward government and my experience with unintended results. How could I know whether or not this physician was where he was based on merit, or as a result of receiving preferential treatment throughout his education?
I think this is a very valid and important conversation to have, but my experience is that it falls within that realm of “dangerous territory”; ideas best left alone for fear of that dreaded scarlet “R”.
So what’s my point? (Sorry for drifting here …)
My point is this. “Justice” is a human invention, and as such, it is flawed. Who are we, anyway, to believe that our notions of right and wrong supersede those of nature? Success and prosperity grow and flourish out of the most inauspicious beginnings – and those with the most privilege often fail miserably. Darwin, I believe, was right – it’s not the conditions that lead to survival or extinction, it’s the ability to adapt. And that can come from nowhere but within. (That’s a helluva thought to come from an anti-science conservative, ain’t it?)
So therefore, rather than try to manipulate, legislate, or otherwise engineer attitudes through targeted laws, through Facebook shunning, or idealistic outreach based solely on identity, I think that there is a tremendous amount of merit in a more Laissez-Faire attitude that embraces a philosophy more Darwinistic than idealistic.
The problem with this attitude, of course, is that we have to take what we get – we have to abandon our idealistic notions of how things “should” be, and accept how they develop in a state of nature. And for those of us who may embrace this attitude, we absolutely run the risk of being painted as uncaring,
Of course, this is a very harsh attitude, and it goes against every instinct we have to seek pleasure and avoid pain, doesn’t it? Isn’t it always better to be compassionate, to care for our neighbor, to leverage our own advantage to smooth the way of the less fortunate? But in a true state of nature, individuals are routinely sacrificed to ensure the survival of the species – and so it goes in human endeavors as well – including academia.
Applying this line of thinking to higher education, and accepting the fact that conservatives,as an ideological “class” are shunned by the education establishment by any or all of the conditions we’ve discussed – well, what then?
In previous decades and centuries, those who availed themselves of higher education were a kind of privileged, elite class. While this created its own kind of envy or animosity, it really had very little to do with success. John D. Rockefeller, John Jacob Astor, Solomon Guggenheim, Amelia Earhart, Susan B. Anthony – these people top the lists of tens of thousands of very successful individuals who never attended or never finished college.
While one might argue that these people were exceptional individuals and non-mainstream, I’d contest that thought – or at least enumerate the countless others who have achieved success without benefit of college – who differ from the above list only in notoriety. I’ve told this story before – that my grandparents came to this country after fleeing the pogroms of Russia in the early 1900’s. Settling in the outskirts of Boston, they were the objects of derision of their time – non-English speaking Jews who lived in the slums. Yet they, like everyone else in their generation, worked hard, sacrificed much, and developed a successful business that enabled them to put half of their children through school. My own father went to medical school, and created a life of enviable privilege for my sister and me.
We were members of a very exclusive country club, and of an equally exclusive beach club. Some of the other members were most certainly beneficiaries of old money and education – doctors, lawyers, politicians – but many others were like my grandparents – political emigres who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and pursued their own success despite not having a formal education. Among these members was Leon Hess, the founder of Hess Oil and former owner of the New York Jets – a self-made multi-billionaire – the son of a kosher butcher from Lithuania who got his start by delivering oil. Descendants of Lyman and Joseph Bloomingdale were also area notables, as were those of the Saks and Gimbel families. My connection to the members of these families had everything to do with heritage, history, and work ethic, and very little to do with privilege. And I went to college, and they didn’t.
But the real stories are the kids i grew up with. As the “rich kid”, I was different – but the kids from the “other side of the tracks” in my generation who never went to college are, for the most part, extremely successful today. In other posts I’ve talked about my former neighbor Rick, who took up plumbing while still in high school – a job he had to take because his family needed the income. He’s now the owner of a successful business that put both of his sons through college and left him enough cash to buy “his & hers” powerboats for himself and his wife, and a winter home in Florida. (His wife, Karen, told my wife, “I got sick of Rick going out fishing every weekend – so I just bought my own boat!”
I’ve talked about my cousin, Rich, a good ol’ boy Pennsylvania farmer (clinging to his Bible and his gun), who built a very successful western-wear franchise. He got his start leasing a “piece of ground” from a farmer and raising feeder pigs on it. He did this for a few years, and developed a keen understanding of pork-belly futures – which put a nice chunk of change in his pocket. He bought a few lots of leather jackets, big-buckle belts and cowboy boots and loaded them up into a used trailer and set out to follow the rodeo circuit – but only made it to one because he sold out within hours. This led to several trailers and broader inventory, which led to a brick-and-mortar store and then a hugely successful investment in Florida real estate, which he parlayed into a retirement-community empire. He sent both of his sons to college – but just ask him how he feels about that.
The idea of college or higher education as a necessity is an artificial one. The cynic in me believes, or at least suspects, that it is a systemic flow of propaganda that supports a leftist agenda of creating problems that government can solve. If we believe that college is necessary for success, then maybe we can make the case that those who don’t have the resources to attend are somehow victims of an oppressive environment that favors the rich, or eschews diversity, or is otherwise skewed in favor of some privileged class of people whom we should all envy – or maybe even despise. At least one political party is at the ready, poised to swoop in and make everything right for downtrodden – and all the while paint their opposition as “in the pocket of the wealthy”, or even “uncaring about, or even hating, the poor”.
I don’t know about you, Michael, but I see many, many students who come to college because they think they have to – that have no idea what they are doing or what to make of it – who graduate and get jobs far afield of their majors – saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of debt which … guess what? The government can forgive.
I struggle with this every day. I still believe that what I provide my students, at least those at the top, are the tools for success in their chosen discipline. Because we balance strong aesthetic sensibilities with broad technical underpinnings, and hold our students to high standards, they are sought after and recruited by many key companies in this industry. We are nonetheless constantly threatened by “training” facilities that fast-track students into industry positions that increasingly rival the ones our students land.
For now, I think we’re still ahead in terms of the “value added” we offer in the broader education we provide, but the gap is narrowing. Our tuition continues to increase, and as there are more able and educated people seeking work in this field the salaries come down – and it won’t last.
And of course, within this context live the mediocre students – those whom I fear will end up as indebted bartenders, victims of their own misconceptions about the benefits of entitlement without hard work.
Following that cynical rabbit-hole to its terminus, well, we have to ask across the board, “What did these students gain?” Many, with ill-defined majors and few ideas about their future will have no real practical use for their education, they are carrying unprecedented amounts of debt – but they overwhelmingly support liberal ideology. Maybe it’s not about them after all.
Meanwhile, an increasing number of conservatives claim that college is doing more harm than good. To those who believe in the lofty ideal of “higher education” and trust that the university system is the place to obtain this elusive fruit, this notion is downright shocking – and respond with the conclusion that conservatives are “anti-intellectual”, “anti-science”, and “anti-expert”. As one who holds this anti-college sentiment, at least to a limited extent, I can assure you that that conclusion is anything but true.
(It wasn’t too long ago that opponents of the Dalcon Shield or even regular breast exams were decried as “anti-women”, too).
I would hypothesize that the absence of conservative thought in higher education may only look like an ideological and political victory. Concern like yours, Michael, may lead to a real progressive push for inclusion, but the ultimate failure of that push in the face of a conservative refusal to accept the artificial help will only leave well-intentioned liberals with nothing but bewilderment. “There must be something we can do!”
Wthin this scenario, Darwin may very well reign supreme, and the success of those who renounce the ivory tower will be the real agents of change. The discrimination against, hostility towards, or other conscious or unconscious bias that victimizes conservatives may just turn out to be the impetus that diminishes once and for all the imagined importance of a college education for so many. And then this conservative exodus may lead to a promise of success without college, one based on the age-old tenets of hard work, innovation, triumph over adversity, and a refusal to accept a “victim” status.
“Education is a wonderful thing”, our youth may say, “but it’s not going to do me as much good as getting to work”. And therein lay the seeds of the next Steve Jobs, Ellen DeGeneris, or Manoj Bhargava. (Manoj was a friend of mine who attended Princeton University in 1974, but dropped out after a year and became an ascetic in India for several years. At some point in his life, he returned to the world of western ideas, and invented the now ubiquitous “5 Hour Energy”. He has now vowed to give away his billions of dollars to technology startups whose ideas can change the world. Princeton Schminceton.)
The pendulum may just swing back to where it was only a few decades before – when a college education was a privilege but not a necessity, and when the “underprivileged” spent less energy on envy and more on motivation and turning the life they were given into their own definition of success. So what then?
Well, I’m no visionary, but universities and the higher education system may undergo a significant downturn – both in terms of their own real economics and in the eyes of America. Trade schools and training facilities may proliferate – and maybe online institutes like the Khan Academy will grow. Any of these choices are far less expensive and with a faster ROI than the Columbias and Vassars of the world.
And instead of expanding the pervasive entitlement mentality and increasing the taxes of working Americans to support it, our government, our society, may re-evaluate the lofty position to which we have elevated higher education, and adopt a more realistic attitude towards its practical value – at least as regards the status quo.
Maybe then there will be a kind of revolution and renaissance, and universities will turn to diversity of ideas and ideologies to attract students – and thus become the bastions of elevated thought they aspire to be today. Of course, those that attend will again be the privileged few, those who can afford to put off working for a living for a few years while they engage in pure thought … Or maybe they will simply find a different niche – one in which they really are a necessity – in the fields of medicine, law, scientific research, and other disciplines where they don’t have to fight to make the case for their own relevance.
Of course, it’s just a thought. Maybe liberal bias in higher education doesn’t need to be fixed. Maybe the solution will evolve – despite our best intentions.