In a LAT column, Jonathan Chait rolls out two old canards to explain the dearth of conservatives in academia:
- "First, Republicans don't particularly want to be professors. To go into academia — a highly competitive field that does not offer great riches — you have to believe that living the life of the mind is more valuable than making a Wall Street salary." Wrong. As I pointed out in my recent TCS column: Network Effects: Liberals and Conservatives in the Academy: What about all those conservatives who have taken low paying jobs at think tanks like Cato, Heritage, or AEI? Or the public interest lawyers working at low paying jobs at places like the Pacific Legal Foundation? My firm belief is that those institutions provide a pool of individuals who would be perfectly happy to settle into the academy, if they had a fair shot at finding an academic job.
- "Second, professors don't particularly want to be Republicans. In recent years, and especially under George W. Bush, Republicans have cultivated anti-intellectualism." In other words, conservatives are stupid. Wrong again. As I also pointed out in my TCS column, Data from the widely used General Social Survey (GSS) consistently show that Republicans are better educated than Democrats (on average, they have more than half a year more education and hold a higher final degree). In addition, Republicans score better than Democrats on two tests included in the GSS. As for Chait's argument that conservatives are anti-intellectual, how about all those fine public intellectuals who write for opinion journals like Policy Review, Commentary, or First Things, to name a few? Or how about all those policy wonks working at places like AEI or Heritage?
In sum, Chait reveals himself to be woefully ignorant of both the academy and conservatives. As I explained in my TCS column, most of the dearth of conservatives in the academy can be ascribed to instituional biases. Sometimes, however, it is actual bias.
The latest example comes from the hiring of famed international law professor Jack Goldsmith at Harvard law School. Although Goldsmith was hired, his liberal opponents not only went public with their opposition, but also are continuing to try to get him fired. This is an almost unheard of breach of academic courtesy.
Nobody I know seriously claims that Jack Goldsmith is not qualified to serve on the Harvard Law Faculty. Indeed, according to the Boston Globe, Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan (a former Clinton staffer) observed of Goldsmith:
Goldsmith, author of noted books and articles on international law, has moved into his office at Harvard and is scheduled to begin teaching in January. Kagan said Tuesday that ''I'm as proud of this appointment as I could be."
Goldsmith's ''work was lauded by a great many people, and we determined that he was an absolutely superb teacher and scholar," she said. ''He puts issues on the table that everyone focuses on and debates, and he's done that in a very short career. He's a very agenda-setting scholar, and that's exactly the kind of exciting scholarship that we want to have here."
Glenn Reynolds opines that: "Notwithstanding that Goldsmith has been critical of my position on cyberporn and the Commerce Clause, I think that he's a first-class scholar and a good hire for Harvard."
So why are the liberals, including three of the five international law specialists at Harvard, opposing him? Not because he is incompetent, but because they don't like what he thinks. It is the worst sort of McCarthyism; but, of course, that's precisely what the academic left is best at. And all of Chait's obfuscation can't change that basic fact.
Update: Nick Confessore opines of Chait's piece: " it's the best thing I've ever read on the subject." Huh. For Chait's tired rehash of long disproven stereotypes to qualify for Confessore's top spot, it must be the only thing Confessore's ever read on the subject.
Update2: Henry Farrell says my analysis of Chait's second point contains a non-sequitur and further opines:
Nor does the fact that Republican intellectuals exist contradict the fact that there is a strong strain of anti-intellectualism to Republican Party rhetoric, and Republican attempts to appeal to voters (as, for example, the pillorying of Al Gore for using big numbers and complicated ideas). While this anti-intellectualism doesn’t completely explain the dearth of Republican academics by any stretch of the imagination, it surely helps contribute to the hostility of many in the academy, as does the open hostility of many Republicans to evolutionary biology and the very real scientific consensus on global warming.
One would have thought my point was obvious, but let me spell it out. Point one: There are a lot smart conservatives out there interested in intellectual matters and the life of the mind. They're qualified to be academics and likely would pursue an academic career if they had a fair shot at landing one. Point two: Even if Chait and Farrell are right that there is a streak of anti-intellectualism in the Republican party, so fricking what? Why does that justify the academic left's discrimination against conservatives? (You'll note Farrell just sort of glides past that point.) Would Farrell say that environmentalists should be excluded from the academy because some eco-nuts commit the grossly anti-intellectual act of vandalizing laboratories doing animal research? Of course not. So spare me your stereotypes and generalizations. And stop using Karl Rove's (highly successful) campaign tactics as your spurious justification for discriminating against conservative academics. Just because your Democrat party can't beat Bush doesn't justify taking our your anger on right-of-center job applicants.
Update3: Farrell now says:
I simply point to a major flaw in Bainbridge’s argument; he egregiously misinterprets Chait for his own rhetorical purposes. This has no bearing on the underlying question of whether there is, or is not, discrimination against conservative academics. In Bainbridge’s response, he doesn’t even bother to try and justify his misinterpretation; instead he tries to change the subject again by claiming (without any evidence whatsoever) that I’m trying to justify anti-conservative discrimination.
I don't think so. Chait said:
Second, professors don't particularly want to be Republicans. In recent years, and especially under George W. Bush, Republicans have cultivated anti-intellectualism.
Perhaps I erred in assuming this was a thinly disguised version of the "conservatives are stupid" argument, but I'm not the only one who read it that way. San Diego law professor Tom Smith wrote:
Jonathan, this a good first draft. However, I would try next time to rely a little less on tired cultural stereotypes such as “Democrats are smart/Republicans are stupid; Democrats are altruistic/Republicans are greedy.”
(Do go read the whole thing.) On the other hand, CE Petit also took me to task for conflating intellectualism with educational achievement. (It's another one worth reading in full.)
In any event, I also went on to point out that even if you buy his factual premise about the GOP, there remains a substantial streak of serious intellectualism among conservatives. In light of the substantial intellectual firepower on the right side of the life of the mind, Chait's argument made no sense unless he's arguing that the academy is somehow justified in discriminating against conservatives because of the alleged anti-intellectualism of the GOP. How else would one interpret it?
As for Farrell, remember what he said:
While this anti-intellectualism doesn’t completely explain the dearth of Republican academics by any stretch of the imagination, it surely helps contribute to the hostility of many in the academy ...
If that's not an attempt to invoke the "hostility of the academy" to justify - or, at least, explain - the dearth of conservatives in the academy, what is it?
Comments