Conservatism and the Academy (Again)

But Levi, that’d be fine if there was some quantification of the data. But that’s precisely what is missing. If you prefer to call it an illegitimate generalization I’m fine with that. But in terms of the logic it’s no different from some fearful white suburbanite thinking all African American males are likely criminals when they see a black teenager walking down a dark street. Logically we ought know that is an illegitimate generalization (or composition fallacy depending upon how the reasoning is done). However people do this and this is what I think happens with the quite unfair generalizations of conservatives. That sort of reasoning ought be something we fight against regardless of how it is marshaled.

If you say for instance that conservatism rejects scientific methodology what conservatism are you speaking of? Even the skeptics I disagree with strongly don’t disagree with scientific methodology. I think that might fit some people but typically not the people who are academics. Now we might disagree with their reasoning. But to characterize it as rejecting scientific methodology is just plain wrong. Secondly you completely neglect all the conservatives who believe in global warming, such as the last Republican Presidential candidate. (For the record I’m a big believing in global warming and regularly defend it here) Many conservatives agree with global warming but disagree over how to deal with it. This includes quite a lot of prominent figures.

So my ultimate qualm is that you are sitting up strawmen. Yes one can find unreasonable conservative. But you can find unreasonable liberals as well. It’s unfair to judge liberalism but those making the weakest arguments and it is unfair to judge conservatism the same. What ought count are the rational arguments made by academics within the movement and not what the more populist elements say.

Now if, as you apparently do, honestly think the vast majority of academically trained conservatives engage in disingenuous or shoddy reasoning that’s fine. But I think one ought be able to make arguments for that position while keeping in mind the ever present problem of confirmation bias. Thus far I’m not seen any remotely rigorous studies that establish that.

Levi, first I hope I don’t come off as shrill or insecure. As I’ve tried to make clear I find the whole politics and the academy largely a tempest in a tea pot. There’s just a lot of hyperbole on both sides. I don’t worry about hiring because I think most conservatives going into academics know enough to keep quiet about their political beliefs when there’s prejudice against them. So I really don’t think it’s ultimately a practical issue.

What I find unfortunate though is that those on the left create a caricature of what informed conservatives believe. The approach you outline above is an example of this. i.e. lots of conservatives disbelieve evolution therefore conservatism is illegitimate academically. This though as I’ve tried to make clear treats the more academically oriented conservatism as akin to its populist cousin. If there’s one thing I’d reiterate it is that there isn’t a conservativism of that sort. (For one it conflates the concerns of Evangelicals with economic conservatives) It’s just not a monolithic movement.

I think far too many thoughtful liberals just discount conservatism because they see Fox News and then tar the whole movement with that.

And, to drive the point home, perhaps these alleged “conservatives” don’t advertise their “conservatism” precisely because they aren’t conservatives and don’t wish to associate themselves with conservatives because they’re something different. I’ll also note that the “reverse racism” card (your point about generalizations) is a favorite move of conservative scoundrels that wish to confuse debate and draw false equivalencies where there are none. I speak from the experience of my gay colleagues that are getting the shit kicked out of them by such conservatives, and by the rest of us who regularly encounter explicitly Christocentric college events despite a diverge population of Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Bhuddists, and atheists… All the way up to Christmas cards announcing x as the most important event in all of human history from major power players in the college. There’s no place for this crap.

Levi, I can but say it sounds like you have an unfortunate situation there. I’d just be very careful not to generalize to the academy at large just as I’d not generalize about all academics based upon my time working at Los Alamos National Laboratory (where I can assure you there were a large number of very intelligence – often hyper-intelligent – conservatives) Interestingly my supervisor there was a Marxist who used to be a drug dealer in his younger days and didn’t seem to find any persecution for his ideas.

Hi Everyone,

Sorry to come to this discussion a little late. I agree with those that have tried to demonstrate the diversity of views within each political philosophy. Nevertheless, I think it is also necessary to try and interrogate what makes a particular political philosophy distinct. I think this can be done by thinking about the values systems that engender each philosophy. I think generally the thing that ties the left together is an overwhelming belief that equality is the most important goal for humanity while the right would argue that stability, order, and prosperity are the most important aspects of life. I think that part of the problem that conservatives find in the academy, especially in the humanities, is that these disciplines have been engineered, in their present form, around the idea of critical inquiry and thinking. When thinking critically, the easiest position to take is one that disparages the past and the status quo. Since such an endeavor, in part, counters the conservative values of stability and order, often conservatives find themselves marginalized. If they do engage in critical exercises, they generally critique the critical ways of thinking that have become normative in the academy and are branded as reactionaries. I guess the real question involves whether critical inquiry should be the primary goal of the humanities in academia. I think that as long as critical thinking is the norm, it puts conservatives at a philosophical disadvantage. For me, the academy as presently constituted really isn’t a problem since disciplines were created to discipline the minds of students into a certain way of thinking, though I think that those of us on the left need to do a better job understanding the values systems that undergird conservative thought.

I also feel that the scientific method brings its own values to the table, some of which seem profoundly conservative such as the way that the possibility of profit drives a lot of research, but at the same time it is built to question, innovate, and evaluate which are attributes that often attract people on the left. Thus, I think evaluating the political positioning of scientists in the academy is often determined by class status and background, rather than the disciplines themselves.

You’re really defending the guy who supported dictators like Pinochet in Chile and whose economic policies, among others, were instrumental in reforming a variety of state economic systems that created massive wealth disparities and dispossessed local populations of all sorts of wealth and standards of living. Figures like Hayek are ground zero in these debates and discussions. They’ve played a key role in creating massive suffering throughout the world. Moreover, we’ve seen again and again that when these sorts of free market ideologies are enacted, the wealth gap grows exponentially, wages stagnate, jobs become precarious, and markets become precarious. No, there’s nothing there that I’m sympathetic to. I think this is a prime example of bad social science premised on a quasi-mystical view of markets and individuals where we believe they’ll engage in negative feedback, regulating themselves, and providing for all. The actual historical record shows something quite different.

I’ll give you a specific example from academic history. You may say that is not hard science but it is an excellent example of liberals in academia. A young man presented his doctoral thesis. His argument was the founding fathers were not Christians but rather Rational Theists. This was demonstrated through the use of reason and biblical studies to develop non-Christian religious principles. He claimed this was the product of the age of Enlightenment. When I asked him how that fit into the Enlightenment thought he couldn’t give an answer that indicated he understood Enlightenment positions on religion. Philosophers, at that time, were either antagonistic towards religion or thought religion lay outside the rational discussions. When confronted him with this including quotes he had no comeback.

His technique was to define the nature of orthodox Christian thought (straw-man). Anything which deviated from this thought was non-Christian. One of his favorite founding father was John Adams. He presented a number of religious idea of Adams. The young man’s assertion was Adams studied the bible through the use of reason and ended up with religious principles at odd with orthodox Christian though. Therefore Adams was not a Christian but, rather. a rational theist. I pointed out all of Adams’ “doctrines” were consistent with 17th-century Christian Arminianism. I further pointed out that Adams, in his biography, stated his family (including himself) along with many others chose to attended church conducted by an arminian preacher. I suggested the source of Adams’ religious principles were the arminian teachings he grew up with and not based on “rationality” he had nothing to say.

This young man displayed ignorance of late reformation thought. He displayed no knowledge of enlightenment thought. His assertion about the source of Adams’ religious thought was wrong. He changed historical “facts’ to suit his thesis. And, was awarded a Ph.d. The reason he passed was he spouted the liberal orthodoxy. So please don’t talk to me about lies and alteration of facts by conservatives.