There is a persistent lament among conservative academics that they are discriminated against in the modern academy. This lament has become so strong that they argue for hiring more conservatives through an affirmative action progam, that is, ‘viewpoint diversity’
1) Almost every conservative that I know in academia does not want affirmative action for conservatives. They simply want to not be actively discriminated against at every stage of the academic filtering process.
There's also, I think, a broader intellectual disconnect between the kinds of questions, topics, and even methods that conservatives might want to use compared to what more left-leaning intellectuals prefer, which is where the "viewpoint diversity" aspect comes in a bit more. More academics could be tolerant of people who are bright, but want to study questions that aren't currently in vogue (within, of course, reasonable bounds, which I suspect is where some of this divide is). I also think that conservatives often want to study "bigger" questions and get frustrated when the rewards in academia are for studying minor or even insignificant questions using the state-of-the-art/currently in vogue techniques as part of "normal science."
2) The problem with "normal science" is that it's not actually succeeding in what it claims to do. It is currently directed at supporting safe middle-range theories that comport with what most academics believe, that is, things that broadly appeal to the political left. The ostensible neutrality of "science" is then used as a cover to claim that left-wing beliefs are correct, right-wing ideas are wrong, and that to be a good educated person you must reject right-wing beliefs.
It is quite easy these days to use "social science" as a laundering mechanism for left-wing beliefs. A common tactic is to create some variable, call it "Bad Thing X", then define Bad Thing X in such a way that conservative states and people will absolutely have lots of it. There are plenty of variables and whole careers out there built on Conservative = Bad Thing, especially in sociology and political science. But even beyond that, the general research topics that are focused on and the overall tone and tenor of how pieces should be written and framed are all part of this.
The filtering system of academia is excellent for maintaining these middle-range theories by preventing overwhelming evidence from emerging against them and preventing alternatives from arising. It is much more difficult to get right-coded findings published unless there are very unique circumstances, which undermines the whole ostensibly "scientific" enterprise and creates a false sense of security and "SCIENCE tells us that the left is right!" Twitter-level argumentation.
I don't see this as self-correcting; if anything, it's getting even more conformist. This is where some more "viewpoint diversity" might be helpful then in allowing at least critiques to get published and thus their authors to stay part of academia. And it would benefit academia as well by forcing scholars to be more clear about the limitations of their research and to respond to sharp arguments from conservative scholars rather than dunking on easy targets from say the right-wing media.
3) I understand the critique of conservatives not being willing to use scientific tools as it applies to, say, Austrian Economists who reject using econometrics. But there are many who can and do use such tools out there and I think it would be a good thing for more conservatives to get over their skepticism enough to at least use those tools, though with eyes wide open for the ways they can be misused and the limits of their ability to shed light on phenomena.
What's interesting is that this critique is also somewhat similar to what critical theorists often make, albeit from different intellectual priors: a skepticism of Science with a capital S and a focus on the sociological processes that go into making Science.
4) Fully agree on your points though about why conservatives care about the humanities so much. Indeed, I think conservatives would be more willing to integrate the social sciences and humanities in classes and research and have an appreciation for what the humanities can offer the sciences.
Excellent essay! Much food for thought here. I really do see quite a bit an unstated (or sometimes directly stated!) complaint that social scientists are ungrateful to capitalism / liberal democracy for the good life they lead, as in the "tenured radicals" gibe.
Interesting essay. A few responses:
1) Almost every conservative that I know in academia does not want affirmative action for conservatives. They simply want to not be actively discriminated against at every stage of the academic filtering process.
There's also, I think, a broader intellectual disconnect between the kinds of questions, topics, and even methods that conservatives might want to use compared to what more left-leaning intellectuals prefer, which is where the "viewpoint diversity" aspect comes in a bit more. More academics could be tolerant of people who are bright, but want to study questions that aren't currently in vogue (within, of course, reasonable bounds, which I suspect is where some of this divide is). I also think that conservatives often want to study "bigger" questions and get frustrated when the rewards in academia are for studying minor or even insignificant questions using the state-of-the-art/currently in vogue techniques as part of "normal science."
2) The problem with "normal science" is that it's not actually succeeding in what it claims to do. It is currently directed at supporting safe middle-range theories that comport with what most academics believe, that is, things that broadly appeal to the political left. The ostensible neutrality of "science" is then used as a cover to claim that left-wing beliefs are correct, right-wing ideas are wrong, and that to be a good educated person you must reject right-wing beliefs.
It is quite easy these days to use "social science" as a laundering mechanism for left-wing beliefs. A common tactic is to create some variable, call it "Bad Thing X", then define Bad Thing X in such a way that conservative states and people will absolutely have lots of it. There are plenty of variables and whole careers out there built on Conservative = Bad Thing, especially in sociology and political science. But even beyond that, the general research topics that are focused on and the overall tone and tenor of how pieces should be written and framed are all part of this.
The filtering system of academia is excellent for maintaining these middle-range theories by preventing overwhelming evidence from emerging against them and preventing alternatives from arising. It is much more difficult to get right-coded findings published unless there are very unique circumstances, which undermines the whole ostensibly "scientific" enterprise and creates a false sense of security and "SCIENCE tells us that the left is right!" Twitter-level argumentation.
I don't see this as self-correcting; if anything, it's getting even more conformist. This is where some more "viewpoint diversity" might be helpful then in allowing at least critiques to get published and thus their authors to stay part of academia. And it would benefit academia as well by forcing scholars to be more clear about the limitations of their research and to respond to sharp arguments from conservative scholars rather than dunking on easy targets from say the right-wing media.
3) I understand the critique of conservatives not being willing to use scientific tools as it applies to, say, Austrian Economists who reject using econometrics. But there are many who can and do use such tools out there and I think it would be a good thing for more conservatives to get over their skepticism enough to at least use those tools, though with eyes wide open for the ways they can be misused and the limits of their ability to shed light on phenomena.
What's interesting is that this critique is also somewhat similar to what critical theorists often make, albeit from different intellectual priors: a skepticism of Science with a capital S and a focus on the sociological processes that go into making Science.
4) Fully agree on your points though about why conservatives care about the humanities so much. Indeed, I think conservatives would be more willing to integrate the social sciences and humanities in classes and research and have an appreciation for what the humanities can offer the sciences.
Excellent essay! Much food for thought here. I really do see quite a bit an unstated (or sometimes directly stated!) complaint that social scientists are ungrateful to capitalism / liberal democracy for the good life they lead, as in the "tenured radicals" gibe.