I have a letter in The Chronicle of Higher Education responding to Steven Teles’ call for more conservative college professors. It’s a shortened version of a longer piece I wrote, which I’m posting here.
I thought it was fairly simple? Universities are institutions where people search for truth, but conservatives are weird lizard-people who are allergic to truth.
Any well-paid anesthetist will confirm that conservatives are immune to empathy. And a dermatologist can confirm that their skin turns orange.
It's so funny to me that these guys are screaming bloody murder about affirmative action for anyone else but put it forward with a straight face for themselves.
I have long adhered to the self-selection explanation advanced here, with the additional point that for right of centre people of above-average intelligence and communication skills, careers outside academia also offer them more scope to give effect to their political values than do academic careers. Would Professor Andrew Bolt have the influence that bloviator Andrew Bolt has? Why did Professor John Hewson accept Liberal Party preselection in 1987?
Is there an exploration on how having Republican views on science can disadvantage someone in the social sciences and humanities? Like, it isn't likely that a Republican who believes that climate change is fake would have a great time interacting with much social and political philosophy that assumes that climate change is dangerous.
I think it does run deeper. Not being a climatologist and saying most climatologists are wrong is simply an attitude not acceptable in academia, it is not professional at all. It would be equivalent to someone from the marketing department giving shit to the IT, your code is all wrong, I could do it better... there has to be some level of professional courtesy, of assuming people know their jobs.
While I appreciate the sentiment...everyone does give shit to IT. Because most 'people' can use a spreadsheet or a word processor they are obviously qualified to dream up solutions to complicated informational and computational problems. These people are called 'Project Managers' .
Is there academic work on 'Managerialism'? I'm reading Irvin Janis' 'Groupthink' and I'm starting some study in psychology focusing on Organisational Behaviour because I'm interested in establishing some academic unpinning to my observations of decision making in a business settings. I think that there is a sub-genre of Groupthink operating, sort of an ideology of 'relentless positivism'.
Another thought- 10% of US college (university) enrollments are at private religious colleges. Presumably most of the faculty will be Republican (and conservative). Also the US has a massive White Evangelical Industrial Complex, with tens of thousands of professional pastors, apologists and so on. Much of the White Evangelical Industrial Complex fear/hate secular colleges and tell the faithful to stay clear of them. Religion is therefore part of the explanation for why secular US colleges have so few conservative faculty
>Implicitly, Teles is rejecting the view that the views of American conservatives in these fields could be wrong in the same way that scientific creationism and folk economics are wrong.
I loved the observation: “Implicitly, Teles is rejecting the view that the views of American conservatives in these fields could be wrong.”
And therein lies the crux of the issue, the inability to relinquish one’s ego for the profoundly emotional irrational unacceptability to consider a choice that even the neoclassical economist’s homoeconomicus’ rational self-serving model of humanity would see is the only rational conclusion! 🤣. But let’s keep a narrative that fits his preconceptions and have it be an inexplicable mystery why the highly educated tend not to be conservative unless they are making big money out of being so! Teles just needs to offer high economic returns in wages (as your article alludes will change political affiliations) to ”turn” the typically progressive academic and relieve the paucity of conservative academics. Its all about the money not the rational intellect.
That the deep critical thinker has become the left-wing misfit of the conservative world is not a coincidence. Still, the thought that it might be highly correlated with truth is utterly unacceptable. To maintain “order and control” inherent in the views that dominate Teles’ conservative perspective, he would be better served to castigate and isolate the intellectual, the sage, the philosopher, and the savant before their ideas awaken people. The common complaint of conservative anti-intellectual movements is how “left-wing” the university educated become. Then, they more often discourage people from going into higher education and being corrupted by “critical thinking” and — heavens forbid — “reading”. It is indeed saddening. No one in reality (unless they lock you up) can prevent you from reading. Yet, this is accomplished by social pressure and the “burning books” brigade (well, at least ensuring these radical CRT/LGBTI/Racial affirmation books are not to be found in libraries or schools) who have a distaste for “dat book learnin’” stuff. 🙄
I have a theory. I think everybody wants (on the value judgement level) a free, fair and reasonably equal society.
The main political difference is on the fact level: has this already been achieved, or not. Is society colorblind etc.
If this is true, then of course the political battle will be on the fact level, what is true and what is not, and it is precisely social science that delivers these facts.
If it is true, then social science has to either overwhelmingly come down the side that this has not yet been achieved (left) or that it has been (right).
Currently it comes down on the side that it has not been achieved. For example I have read a stat that in the US school spending per children is about twice for whites than for blacks. This kind of thing obviously makes one a leftist, because it implies the goals even conservatives agree with (free, fair, reasonably equal) have not been achieved.
I don't believe this is entirely correct. If I want to hear a nuanced and intelligent take on gender ideology, I need to read folk like the philosopher Kathleen Stock, who was pushed out of academia by progressives. If I want to understand the difference between male and female and gain a detailed and strictly scientific understanding of DSDs, I need to read biologists like Dr Colin Wright. Dr Wright would literally put his life at risk dared show up at a major university today. Both progressivism and conservatism in their current forms involve "rejection of the intellectual values of a university" in certain academic fields. The conservatives have far more problem areas, but progressivism is also sick.
I thought it was fairly simple? Universities are institutions where people search for truth, but conservatives are weird lizard-people who are allergic to truth.
Any well-paid anesthetist will confirm that conservatives are immune to empathy. And a dermatologist can confirm that their skin turns orange.
It's so funny to me that these guys are screaming bloody murder about affirmative action for anyone else but put it forward with a straight face for themselves.
I have long adhered to the self-selection explanation advanced here, with the additional point that for right of centre people of above-average intelligence and communication skills, careers outside academia also offer them more scope to give effect to their political values than do academic careers. Would Professor Andrew Bolt have the influence that bloviator Andrew Bolt has? Why did Professor John Hewson accept Liberal Party preselection in 1987?
Most of those who'd otherwise be conservative professors are probably sitting in superyachts and C-suites instead of university offices.
Is there an exploration on how having Republican views on science can disadvantage someone in the social sciences and humanities? Like, it isn't likely that a Republican who believes that climate change is fake would have a great time interacting with much social and political philosophy that assumes that climate change is dangerous.
I think it does run deeper. Not being a climatologist and saying most climatologists are wrong is simply an attitude not acceptable in academia, it is not professional at all. It would be equivalent to someone from the marketing department giving shit to the IT, your code is all wrong, I could do it better... there has to be some level of professional courtesy, of assuming people know their jobs.
While I appreciate the sentiment...everyone does give shit to IT. Because most 'people' can use a spreadsheet or a word processor they are obviously qualified to dream up solutions to complicated informational and computational problems. These people are called 'Project Managers' .
This is the ideology of managerialism, and determines the attitude of managers to professionals of all kinds.
Is there academic work on 'Managerialism'? I'm reading Irvin Janis' 'Groupthink' and I'm starting some study in psychology focusing on Organisational Behaviour because I'm interested in establishing some academic unpinning to my observations of decision making in a business settings. I think that there is a sub-genre of Groupthink operating, sort of an ideology of 'relentless positivism'.
I'd be happy to send them Ian Plimer :) although I think he's retired, just wheeled out on occasion for the climate change denial side
Another thought- 10% of US college (university) enrollments are at private religious colleges. Presumably most of the faculty will be Republican (and conservative). Also the US has a massive White Evangelical Industrial Complex, with tens of thousands of professional pastors, apologists and so on. Much of the White Evangelical Industrial Complex fear/hate secular colleges and tell the faithful to stay clear of them. Religion is therefore part of the explanation for why secular US colleges have so few conservative faculty
>Implicitly, Teles is rejecting the view that the views of American conservatives in these fields could be wrong in the same way that scientific creationism and folk economics are wrong.
It's their deeper worldview. Social sciences explicitly use empathy as their method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen
I loved the observation: “Implicitly, Teles is rejecting the view that the views of American conservatives in these fields could be wrong.”
And therein lies the crux of the issue, the inability to relinquish one’s ego for the profoundly emotional irrational unacceptability to consider a choice that even the neoclassical economist’s homoeconomicus’ rational self-serving model of humanity would see is the only rational conclusion! 🤣. But let’s keep a narrative that fits his preconceptions and have it be an inexplicable mystery why the highly educated tend not to be conservative unless they are making big money out of being so! Teles just needs to offer high economic returns in wages (as your article alludes will change political affiliations) to ”turn” the typically progressive academic and relieve the paucity of conservative academics. Its all about the money not the rational intellect.
That the deep critical thinker has become the left-wing misfit of the conservative world is not a coincidence. Still, the thought that it might be highly correlated with truth is utterly unacceptable. To maintain “order and control” inherent in the views that dominate Teles’ conservative perspective, he would be better served to castigate and isolate the intellectual, the sage, the philosopher, and the savant before their ideas awaken people. The common complaint of conservative anti-intellectual movements is how “left-wing” the university educated become. Then, they more often discourage people from going into higher education and being corrupted by “critical thinking” and — heavens forbid — “reading”. It is indeed saddening. No one in reality (unless they lock you up) can prevent you from reading. Yet, this is accomplished by social pressure and the “burning books” brigade (well, at least ensuring these radical CRT/LGBTI/Racial affirmation books are not to be found in libraries or schools) who have a distaste for “dat book learnin’” stuff. 🙄
I have a theory. I think everybody wants (on the value judgement level) a free, fair and reasonably equal society.
The main political difference is on the fact level: has this already been achieved, or not. Is society colorblind etc.
If this is true, then of course the political battle will be on the fact level, what is true and what is not, and it is precisely social science that delivers these facts.
If it is true, then social science has to either overwhelmingly come down the side that this has not yet been achieved (left) or that it has been (right).
Currently it comes down on the side that it has not been achieved. For example I have read a stat that in the US school spending per children is about twice for whites than for blacks. This kind of thing obviously makes one a leftist, because it implies the goals even conservatives agree with (free, fair, reasonably equal) have not been achieved.
I don't believe this is entirely correct. If I want to hear a nuanced and intelligent take on gender ideology, I need to read folk like the philosopher Kathleen Stock, who was pushed out of academia by progressives. If I want to understand the difference between male and female and gain a detailed and strictly scientific understanding of DSDs, I need to read biologists like Dr Colin Wright. Dr Wright would literally put his life at risk dared show up at a major university today. Both progressivism and conservatism in their current forms involve "rejection of the intellectual values of a university" in certain academic fields. The conservatives have far more problem areas, but progressivism is also sick.