In today's NY Times, newly-hired token conservative David Brooks writes of the absence of conservatives in the academy. The factual premise -- that libertarians and conservatives are under-represented on college and university campuses -- seems undeniable:
During the mid-1990's, for example, Professor James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School conducted a survey of law professors, and concluded that of the faculties of the top 100 law schools, 80% of law professors were Democrats (or leaned left) and only 13% were Republicans (or leaned right). There is no reason to believe these numbers have changed.
Brooks identifies the problem as bias by those who do the hiring:
[T]here's one circumstance that causes [conservative faculty members] true anguish: when a bright conservative student comes to them and says he or she is thinking about pursuing an academic career in the humanities or social sciences. "This is one of the most difficult things," says Alan Kors, a rare conservative at Penn. "One is desperate to see people of independent mind willing to enter the academic world. On the other hand, it is simply the case they will be entering hostile and discriminatory territory." ...
... Will Inboden was working on a master's degree in U.S. history at Yale when a liberal professor pulled him aside after class and said: "You're one of the best students I've got, and you could have an outstanding career. But I have to caution you: hiring committees are loath to hire political conservatives. You've got to be really quiet."
Conservative professors emphasize that most discrimination is not conscious. A person who voted for President Bush may be viewed as an oddity, but the main problem in finding a job is that the sorts of subjects a conservative is likely to investigate — say, diplomatic or military history — do not excite hiring committees. Professors are interested in the subjects they are already pursuing, and in a horrible job market it is easy to toss out applications from people who are doing something different.
As a result, faculties skew overwhelmingly to the left.
If I may coin a phrase you'll dountless want to use yourself, it all sounds pretty fair and balanced to me. The gist is that there is a bias, but often not a conscious one. Yet, Brooks' account prompted the following screed from UT law prof Brian Leiter, the gist of which seems to be that conservatives don't get hired because they're not smart enough, with the test of intelligence being faith in God. I'm paraphrasing, of course, so judge for yourself:
As usual, the possibility that conservatives are underrepresented because of intellectual or scholarly deficiencies isn't broached (how could that topic be broached by a journalist, after all?) (Surely it is relevant to an assessment of why Straussians who work on Plato have difficulty getting hired (except in departments already infested) is that they are viewed by all other Plato scholars as sloppy and philosophically inept scholars.)
Conservatives are usually keen to deny that the absence of, say, Blacks in academia doesn't signal bias; why are they so ready to infer bias from the absence of conservatives?
Only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in God, compared to 90% of the U.S. population. What should we infer?
I particularly don't get the point about "the absence of, say, Blacks in academia." Surely Leiter does not intend to ascribe the under-representation of minorities on university faculties to the same causal factor to which he ascribes the under-representation of conservatives! Perhaps all he means is that it is unfair for conservatives to use statistical evidence of bias in this context, because a number of conservatives criticize the use of statistical evidence of discrimination in disparate impact litigation. If so, I am inclined to be charitable both to Leiter and those he criticizes -- I like a little polemics in my blog reading and even the odd debater's trick. (I am puzzled, however, by a reference further down in Leiter's post that seems to claim courts have "largely rejected" statistical evidence of bias in employment discrimination litigation. That's not the way I learned it in law school, but its not a field I keep up with.) In any event, since Leiter apparently accepts as fact that both conservatives and minorities are under-represented in the academy, assessments with which I agree, we need to ask: who's doing the hiring? Only group left is white liberals. If Leiter wants to claim that white liberals are biased against both groups, that's a claim I'd be happy to concede. Meanwhile, over at the Volokh Conspiracy (and was there ever a pack of smarter moderate and libertarian --albeit, not conservative -- academics?), Juan Non-Volokh has a more temperate commentary:
My experience in the academy ... confirms Brooks' account. Most of the hostility faced by conservatives (and libertarians) is not explicit, and often not conscious or deliberate. In many cases, the subject matter and methodology of conservative scholarship is simply of no interest to those on the left (and probably vice-versa). At schools where there are no tenured conservatives, job candidates and junior professors may be left without a "champion" to help them navigate the process. The lack of right-of-center views at some schools may also make even moderate conservatives appear "kooky" or extreme. By the same token, it is clear to me that many conservatives in academia cry "wolf," or seek to blame political opposition on their failure to succeed in a highly competitive environment. Contrary to what some believe, not every conservative's failure to get tenure is the result of politics.
The last point calls to mind a telling observation in Brooks' article:
"Conservatives are people who teach the value of prudence but are incapable of exercising any," says Mark Lilla, a politically unclassifiable professor at the University of Chicago.
Hmmm ... I wonder if this post is imprudent? Oh well, thank goodness for life tenure. My own take is pretty close to that of Juan Non-Volokh. Personally, I have encountered very little overt discrimination in my career. On the other hand, I have spent enough time around law school hiring to know that it does happen. All too often, applicants with conservative lines on their resume -- an Olin fellowship, Federalist Society membership, or, heaven help you, a Scalia clerkship -- are passed over no matter how sterling the rest of their credentials may be. The problem is that at most law schools there is no critical mass of conservatives to act as "champions" for such candidates. (Leiter says "libertarians ... are well-represented at most of the top law schools (Yale, Harvard, Chicago, Virginia, Texas, UCLA, Northwestern, etc.)" He clearly has not met enough of our faculty.) Law school hiring tends to be driven by the self-perpetuating network of left-leaning senior faculty. Nobody pulls the conservative candidate's AALS form out of the slushpile, while the latest left-leaning prodigy gets the benefit of phone calls from their mentors to buddies of the mentors and having their AALS form flagged or even hand carried around the building. It may not be deliberate bias, but there still is a disparate impact. My advice to aspiring conservative legal academics? Stick to private law topics (business law is especially safe) and follow Juan's advice: "there are reasons some untenured professors blog under pseudonyms." UPDATE: Over at Scrivener's Error, C.E. Petit blogs:
Professor Stephen Bainbridge (now at UCLA, but my professor for securities law when at his former institution) speculates on possible/perceived bias against conservative professors in his blawg. N.B. I have no doubt that Professor Bainbridge was, and is, a "conservative." I also have no doubt that, unlike some and perhaps many others of many political persuasions, he never allowed that to interfere with his teaching or grading.
My blushes. Petit then goes on to make some very interesting substantive points -- the post is well-worth reading.
Comments