THE HILL
 

Conservatives in academia: Express views

By David Hill - 09/15/09 06:00 PM ET

The latest edition of The Chronicle Review (a magazine of the Chronicle of Higher Education) features an intriguing article, “Taking the Right Seriously.” The jumping-off point for this piece is the University of California’s announcement that it’s launching a Center for the Comparative Study of Right Wing Movements. The essay that follows, penned by Columbia University’s ideologically androgynous Mark Lilla, lauds Berkeley’s move in half-hearted fashion while urging that conservatism be approached as a genuine intellectual tradition rather than a social psychopathology.

The most provocative admission of Professor Lilla, however, is buried in the guts of the article. “My brightest conservative students, brought up on hair-raising tales of political correctness, dismiss academic careers out-of-hand because they are certain of not being hired or getting tenure. And I can’t say I blame them.” My own experiences in and around academia convince me that Lilla’s concerns are only part of the story. More than political correctness may be blocking conservative careers in academe. Elsewhere in his ruminations, Lilla admits that too many so-called conservatives are more aptly characterized as Fox News junkies than as authentic intellectual conservatives. You can’t put together a distinguished academic career around Bill O’Reilly talking points. Someone must impress on young conservatives that you must build up an intellectual foundation to enter academe and succeed. To suggest, as Lilla does, that you succeed primarily by playing politics — i.e., hiding your ideology — sends the wrong message.

Conservatives wanting to enter academia need to be counseled that there are biases and prejudices to overcome in all professions. Try to get hired at top Wall Street firms without an Ivy pedigree or seek employment at the best law firm in your state with a night-school degree and you’ll see what I mean. The biases that Lila mourns are in some degree everywhere, but they are most pronounced at Ivy League institutions and a handful of other elite universities. But you don’t have to be at any of those places to be a conservative intellectual. The peer review panels of most academic journals today operate anonymously, so reviewers don’t know you are at a second-tier college or university. Do cutting-edge work and you’ll be rewarded with promotion and better offers from other schools. Trust me, get a long list of publications in refereed journals and your party registration won’t matter. Yes, lightly published liberals may receive preferential treatment, but that’s just life. Stop whining.

Another impediment to conservative entry into academe that Lilla doesn’t explore is its bureaucratic culture. I think a lot of libertarian-minded conservatives object to the “military-industrial complex” that has become academia. My favorite-ever conservative intellectual was Jim Payne, a colleague of mine at Texas A&M University from 1978 to 1986. He was at what was then a conservative institution in a department that, while moderate-to-liberal in its political outlook, respected scholarship. He was a full professor with tenure and was genuinely liked and respected by fellow faculty of every political stripe. But he quit. Why? It was certainly not to abandon scholarship. He’s been churning out books and articles ever since leaving A&M. His current curriculum vitae describes him as director, Lytton Research and Analysis, Sandpoint, Idaho. Lytton is his own creation. I suspect Payne was fed up with all the bureaucratic bunk that university life entails and decided to go out on his own.

Lilla’s squarely on target, however, in advocating that academics encourage political dialogue in the classroom that covers the right as well as the left. If an aspiring conservative intellectual never gets to hear an erudite discussion of the roots of this tradition, and he or she never hears anyone more learned than Sean Hannity defend a conservative worldview, then credible entry into the academy is improbable, at best.

David Hill is a member of the research faculty at Auburn University and has been a Republican pollster since 1984.

Source:
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/david-hill/58911-conservatives-in-academia-express-views

Comments (12)

Open your view further and apply it so succintly to the varying degrees of national media coverage of current events. If you choose to exclude "Fox News" for its content and its "junkies" for their patronage, then you have proven there is no "erudite" discussion in our current society, particularly in the media, academia and politics. It is those "scholarly" discussions that continue to exist in their current, cozy, lockjawed vacuum of self importance and self- adulation that dismisses those arguments that oppose their own.BY Anita on 09/16/2009 at 09:10
"Stop whining?" Because there is an entrenched intellectual prejudice that prevents fair treatment of people's careers if they dare to question the majority view? Because conservative views are seen as "a social psychopathology ?" How prejudice and closed minded can you be? Wake up and listen to yourself. There is academic freedom as long as there is no departure from the party line. Tell Socrates, Bruno, and Galileo to "stop whining." Many academics are still like the prisoners in Plato's cave and want to kill the prisoner who has been dragged into the sun when he tries to tell them that the shadows on the wall are not real. Good grief.BY John on 09/16/2009 at 11:29
So you encourage bright your conservatives to pursue a career in academia, provided they donBY Richard on 09/16/2009 at 11:46
Professor Hill may sound sympathetic to this issue, but I really think he's part of the problem when he offers a blanket stereotype of young conservatives as "Fox News Junkies" and dismisses their fears of prejudice and bias as something you just need to deal with in any institution. This willfully ignores the monolithic domination of academic discourse by orthodox liberals, and the same is true of establihment media. I would imagine that most young conservatives who start out as Fox News Junkies soon graduate to reading National Review and the Weekly Standard and from there more traditional conservative thinkers. Bill O'Reilly may not come close to the late William F. Buckley as an intellectual conservative voice, but that's more indicative of the times we live in.BY Randolph Man on 09/16/2009 at 12:36
You are absolutely correct that every profession has its problems, and many have strong hurdles to entry/acceptance. However, I don't know why you acknowledge the bias against conservatives and choose to minimize it. Perhaps your main point is "suck it up, fight the good fight" which you indicated by "stop whining." And there is something to that argument, for sure.One thing that stuck out to me: you wrote that"Trust me, get a long list of publications in refereed journals and your party registration won’t matter."Your statement I believe is factually correct. However, you seem to assume that the work chosen for submission is independent of the value-system of the author, and that the approval of the anonymous reviewers is likewise independent. You are probably correct if the submission is for a new method for decreasing the heat buildup in computer chips used to process MRI images. But what if the article makes that case that historians will judge the Bush administration positively for its handling of enemy combatants? Or seeks to explain the psychological precursors to irrational belief systems among pro-choice activists? Then how does your statement look?BY Pvalue on 09/16/2009 at 12:53
As persecution goes, this is all pretty mild. Nobody is getting executed or even incarcerated. But it can be enough to make conservatives to outwork and outthink their complacent liberal colleagues, and to identify and overturn their core assumptions. Real intellectuals know they can never do this if they get distracted by the 24 hour news cycle. That's the real cave. Leave that to the people who speak in sound-bites for a living.BY Aslan on 09/16/2009 at 14:26
I was amused to see your denigration of FOX news. I have been amazed over the last year to find myself watching Fox because, in spite of considerable editorializing, it has been covering topics and news items that are completely absent in our regular media. At one time, I thought that if I read or watched several of them, I could get past the bias by omission practiced by the large outlets. They have become so homogeneous that the only reasonable explanation is collusion. Somehow, the left has been able to circumvent the entire purpose of the "free press". We have state-run, not not state-owned, media, Fox news, and alternative media (radio and internet). I watch with interest the State's attempts to dominate or intimidate the few avenues left that disseminate news thet the State does not want us to know.BY marianne7 on 09/16/2009 at 16:08
I've got to agree with PVValue, and I AM a conservative professor. You face two barriers despite blind peer review. First, funding decisions - unless you are in history, english, or philosophy, this plays a role in PT decisions, and try and get a project that is based on the philosophy of the Right funded. In health policy, this gets complicated by the fact that, except for the federal government, every major funder has an explicit agenda supporting Left-wing notions like a single payer system, and you still have the problem of peer-review biases. Then, for all the brouha over suppression of research findings by private funders like drug companies, AcademyHealth recently did a study that found that government agencies are MORE likely to do this. Second, you may be anonymous to the journal reviewers, but your perspective isn't. I've had articles questioning the efficacy of government action with empirical data to back it up rejected by editors without review, only to be rapidly accepted by another editor. There are journals I won't even try to submit to because of the editorial biases.BY AnonProfessor on 09/20/2009 at 08:49
I'm a conservative in a Big 10 college of education. I came here with a conservative outlook and research agenda, and I've let it show in all my teaching. I think there are two other professors like me in this entire college. I'm not certain of this, but I believe that a strong conceptual background and strong scholarly ability can enable a conservative student to find a position at most good colleges and universities.BY Roger on 09/20/2009 at 12:40
The idea that peer reviewed articles will provide the means for conservative professors to advance is naive at best. At the beginning of my academic career I published in the finest journal in my field, the Art Bulletin. As soon as I started questioning positivism-modernism-postmodernism, my articles suddenly no longer had merit in the judgment of such journals.Postmodern peers see no value in non-Postmodernist research. Such peer-review has become a farce.That is why think tanks exist and a few new institutes associated with research universities are so crucial. Without them non Modernist-Postmodernist scholars such as myself would have no public voice.But having such publications count towards professional advancement remains a problem.The foundational issue is that the pursuit of truth has been abandoned. Therefore, allegedly, all is political, and as such only a certain type of politics and scholarship is viewed as noble. Dissent, the grist of serious intellectual work, is denied. The current irony is that to dissent from the current academy is to dissent from a sociopathic postmodernism.BY Arthur Pontynen on 09/21/2009 at 10:01

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.