While the culture warriors claim Marxism dominates higher education, a more realistic concern is that higher education is dominated by liberals (or at least Democrats). Conservatives (or at least Republicans) are an underrepresented minority among faculty. This disparity invites inquiry. One reason to investigate, at least for liberals, would be to check for injustice or oppression causing this disparity. Another motivation is intellectual curiosity.
While sorting out this diversity problem might prove daunting, a foundation of theory and methodology has been laid by those studying the domination of higher education by straight, white males. That is, professors like me. These tools should be useful and ironic for looking into the question of why conservatives are not adequate represented in the academy. But before delving into theories of oppression and unfair exclusion, I must consider that the shortage of conservatives in the ivory towers is a matter of choice. This consideration mirrors a standard explanation for the apparent exclusion of women and minorities for other areas.
One possible explanation is that conservatives have chosen to not become professors. While not always the case, well-educated conservatives tend to be more interested in higher income careers in the private sector. While the pay for full-time faculty is not bad, the pay for adjuncts is terrible. Professor salaries, with some notable exceptions, tend to be lower than non-academic jobs with comparable educational requirements. So, someone interested in maximizing income would not become a professor. Education and effort would yield far more financial reward elsewhere, such as in the medical or financial fields. As such, conservatives are more likely to become bankers rather than philosophers and accountants rather than anthropologists.
A second possible explanation is that people who tend to become professors do not want to be conservatives (or at least Republicans). That is, the qualities that lead a person into a professorial career would tend to lead them away from conservative ideology. While there have been brilliant conservative intellectuals, the Republican party has consistently adopted a strong anti-expert, anti-intellectual stance. This might be due to an anti-intellectual ideology, or because the facts fail to match Republican ideology—such as with climate change. Republicans have also become more hostile to higher education. In contrast, Democrats tend to support higher education.
As becoming a professor generally requires a terminal degree, a professor will spend at least six years in college and graduate school, probably seeing the hostility of Republicans against education and the limited support offered by Democrats. Rational self-interest alone would tend to push professors towards being Democrats, since the Democrats are more likely to support higher education. Those who want to become professors, almost by definition, tend to be intellectual and want to become experts. So, the conservative attacks on experts and intellectuals will tend to drive them away from the Republican party and conservative ideology. Those pursuing careers in the sciences would presumably also find the anti-science stances of the Republicans and conservative ideology unappealing.
While my own case is just an anecdote, one reasons I vote for Democrats is that Democrats are more likely to do things that are in my interest as a professor and in the interest of my students. In contrast, Republicans tend to make my professional life worse by lowering support for education and engaging in micromanagement and ideological impositions. They also make life more difficult for my students. The anti-intellectualism, rejection of truth, and anti-science stances also make the Republican party unappealing to me. As such, it is not surprising that the academy is dominated by liberals: Republicans would usually not want to be professors, and potential professors would tend to not want to be Republicans.
But perhaps there is a social injustice occurring and the lack of diversity is due to the unjust exclusion of conservatives from the academy. It is to this concern that I will address in a future essay. We might need some diversity, equity and inclusion to get conservatives into the academy.
I have read this post three times. My mind is not changed yet. Will await your next installmentl,
Regards,
PDV.
I limited the*ideological gulf*. That was a mistake. The ideological gulf includes far more than Republicans vs.Democrat ideology. It encompasses all factions of IMPs… those with interests, motives and preferences, differing from others. This gulf was never strictly about political party affinity or affiliation: all that simply provided labels which were easily identified…you can’t decide who you want to cheer for and support, without a program. Contextual reality is, at once, inclusive and exclusive: one is always IN yet never OUT. All of the recent ruckess over Ukraine and everyone else has virtually no connection with conventional politics. The US government administration is about power only: the players wish only to demonstrate how powerful they are. That Oval Office dust up had no relation to diplomacy; no concern for whether Ukraine survives and/or exists as an independent state. The USA (united states administration) cares nothing about the outcome of the war. Posturing over rare earth minerals acquisition is a convincing, convenient ruse. A smokescreen. Or, as I have alluded to fencing and kung fu, a feint within a feint. These folks are manipulative, and, opportunistic. And, they like things just that way.
I think you nailed a large piece of this in a brief remark, second paragraph of your post. It seems to me the ivory towers are not, maybe haven’t been bastions of conservative thought. In fact, higher education, as we havecome to know it, is antithetical to conservatism because the ivory tower is emblematic of free speech, open dialog and ideas, many of which conservatives find offensive; repugnant and, well, un-American. Ideologically, the environment is unfriendly and threatening. Now, this is not to say any of that is universal, across the United States. It depends. It depends on which state one is in and which ideology is promoted, therein. These factors vary, demographically and dramatically from *Red* states to *Blue* ones. Ths is very much an Us vs. Them issue and increases as the ideological gulf deepens between Democrats and Republicans.
One interesting thing I note as an ‘outsider wherever I am’ (since I was neither born in American, nor in the UK), is that in the UK, where I live, generally conservatives are more intelligent and educated people than their American equivalents. I don’t particularly like Boris Johson or Theresa May, but frankly, I am always surprised when I hear American conservatives speaking, or read what they say. Most of them seem more uneducated and ignorant. Just what you indicate: they are against science, they talk nonsense, etc etc. I don’t define myself a Democrat either, though I like Democrats better.
But in the end, to me it boils down to this: some people are intelligent, most are not, and quite a few are stupid. I am not intelligent either, and I have done and said some stupid things, but I am glad to note that was a long time ago, when I myself was more uneducated. You, sir, and the few ones like you, hold an importance in this world that is far, far greater than you think. I am 52 and I can say that if I learned anything good and useful, I only learned it from philosophers. No one else. Unfortunately, I was a very late starter, but better dumb most of my life and smarter toward the last portion, than living and dying dumb. Which is, unfortunately, a fate common to most people.
My apologies, I meant ‘America’.