In his essay, "Taking the Right Seriously," Mark Lilla argues that academe has treated conservative ideas with derision and that universities do not show interest in promoting true intellectual diversity.
For responses, we turned to Bruce L.R. Smith, a visiting professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, and Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life and a professor of political science at Boston College. Lilla also provides a rebuttal.
Bruce L.R. Smith: I am delighted by Mark Lilla's essay, and can find very little to quarrel with. As in his other work that I have read, Lilla's argument is lucid, penetrating, and important. But let me quibble with a few points.
Lilla states that there is not a single conservative at Columbia University. I can assure him that this is not so. In 2000, I returned to Columbia after a 20-year hiatus as a fellow at the Heyman Center for the Humanities. Over the next five years I renewed friendships and acquaintanceships with many colleagues (and met new ones), some of whom can fairly be called conservatives. Perhaps I will prove Lilla's point by forbearing to mention them by name, other than myself. I am, of course, a notorious reactionary, even if, alas, some of my conservative friends have read me out of the fraternity in light of my recent book, Closed Minds? Politics and Ideology in American Universities (Brookings Institution Press, 2008), written with Jeremy D. Mayer and A. Lee Fritschler, which is apparently not conservative enough for them. Let the record show that I was hired, given tenure, and promoted to full professor in Columbia's political-science department, even though I harbored—shudder!—conservative views. I was sometimes called names, especially during our "time of troubles" in 1968, but I never felt muzzled or uncomfortable because of my views. I didn't even feel particularly lonely.
Let me, however, mention a few well-known Columbia liberals who are "conservative" if by that term we mean someone who conserves the Columbia tradition of outspokenness and intellectual integrity. I will pass over Lilla himself, who I would certainly count as conservative in this sense. Allan Silver, a professor of sociology and a New Deal liberal, is a stalwart defender of the core curriculum, a proponent of returning ROTC to campus, and an uncompromising foe of ethnic, racial, and gender preferences. Alan Brinkley, provost and a professor of history who has written brilliantly about American conservatism, is someone to whom conservative graduate students gravitate. Jagdish Bhagwati, an economist whom I suppose would be considered a liberal, has nevertheless engaged in ferocious debates with his colleagues Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs in defense of globalization, and in my view clearly has the better argument. One can be culturally conservative while being politically liberal. The liberals I mentioned above are the Tories of higher education, defending academe's basic values against the blight of political correctness.
Lilla rightly notes that many students are somewhat more conservative than their professors, but he fails to draw out the full implications of that observation. Students do not arrive at college with minds like blank sheets. They come with the values they formed earlier in life, and for the most part they leave college with those same values. Students tend to avoid classes from professors they regard as tendentious or biased, and are canny enough to know when a teacher is saying something worthwhile and learned, and when not. Those few academics who consider it their duty to convert students to the right (i.e., left) way of thinking practice a poor pedagogy, and are remarkably unsuccessful in this quest.
The problem facing American universities is not just that conservative views are underrepresented, but that virtually all serious political discussion is lacking on campuses. Professors flee from politics because they, like other Americans, dislike conflict and because they consider policy debates to be journalistic, unscholarly, and unlikely to lead to academic rewards. I certainly don't want overt partisanship or a shallow leftism to suffocate the intellectual atmosphere on campuses like a radon gas. What I do want is a serious debate, in and out of the classroom, of the classic questions of political theory and constitutional order. The core curriculum, I think, does the job rather well.
Alan Wolfe: I would not go as far as Mark Lilla. "American academics have until recently shown little curiosity about conservative ideas," he writes, but everything depends on what is meant by "little." My own department has decidedly conservative tendencies. Conservatives such as Eugene D. Genovese and Stephan Thernstrom wrote pathbreaking works of history in recent years. Influential conservative intellectual movements such as "law and economics" came to the courts via America's law schools. Lilla's own intellectual interests overlap with those of Jean Bethke Elshtain, a professor of social and political ethics at the University of Chicago's Divinity School. There is more intellectual diversity on American campuses, taken as a whole, than Lilla acknowledges.
Still, there is not nearly enough, and on the larger points he tries to make, Lilla is correct. The academic world suffers from too many people trying to hire people too much like themselves. We simply do not give intellectual diversity a high priority in academe, and intellectual life suffers as a result.
Interestingly enough, the effects can be found among the few conservatives in academe as well as among the many more liberals and leftists. When conservatives do congregate on campus, they tend to view themselves as an embattled—and therefore embittered—minority. Although articulate critics of political correctness and identity politics, they make claims on behalf of their own group that are intellectually indistinguishable from those they spend too much time criticizing. Look at all the discrimination directed against us, they howl. We have rights, too. Without ever quite saying so, their arguments on behalf of a politics of recognition for conservatism come a bit too close for their own comfort to the arguments that liberals make for affirmative action.
The resulting conservative sectarianism and sense of victimization hardly make for a pluralistic politics. Conservatives publish in their own journals, hold their own conferences, cite one another's work, and speak in their own jargon. Liberalism would be strengthened by greater engagement with conservatism, but the reverse is also true. Conservatives could use less financing from their own foundations and more engagement with publications such as The Chronicle of Higher Education.
I was intrigued by Lilla's discovery of the late Paul Lyons, and not only because Paul's widow, Mary Hardwick, was the most beautiful student in my graduating class at Temple University, more than 40 years ago. Like Paul, with whom I shared a host of e-mail exchanges, I want my students, many of whom are instinctive moral individualists, to think more deeply about their obligations to others, something that conservatives—the more libertarian among them excluded—are usually better aware of then liberals. I only wish Paul were around to see such public praise for his work.
Mark Lilla: Bruce Smith and Alan Wolfe are right that there are important "conservative tendencies" on campuses and in the faculties of major American universities, especially in the professional schools (law and business) and the so-called hard social sciences (economics and its autistic cousin, rational-choice theory). And there are conservative and conservative-friendly historians, too, which is all to the good.
But I had something else in mind, which is the study of conservative political ideas as ideas. And here, I guess, I'm showing my déformation professionnelle as a student of political theory. What's lacking, I feel (and the late Paul Lyons with me), is recognition that conservative ideas are not symptoms of something allegedly "deeper"—ignorance, fear, selfishness, maladjustment—but reflections of a certain way of looking at the human condition. There is a serious intellectual tradition here that deserves study, not for affirmative-action reasons but because it includes ideas that might have something to teach us about political life—or, to speak in a very old-fashioned way, because some of them might be true. (Like Wolfe, conservative sectarianism drives me mad, and I agree that the "politics of recognition" has no place in the university.)
I'm glad Smith got tenure easily, though I gather that was before the trench warfare of the 80s. Things are not so easy now, certainly in the humanities but even in the so-called soft social sciences. People do get informally muzzled until they get tenure, as Lyons notes when speaking of his "stealth" conservative colleague. In itself, that's not such a big deal; intellectual life is not for crybabies. (Note to deans and provosts: Engrave that on your office door.) What really matters is the kind of education our students get.
Smith has co-written a book about ideology on campuses, which I haven't read, but his remarks that "students tend to avoid classes from professors they regard as tendentious or biased" and that "those few academics who consider it their duty to convert students to the right (i.e., left) way of thinking … are remarkably unsuccessful in this quest" seem to me beside the point, even if true. Ideology doesn't work that way, and its effects can't be measured by asking people whether they perceive it. Marxists were right: Ideology normalizes something arbitrary. Because of the left-liberal consensus in our major universities, we've defined diversity down and simply don't notice that a historically important voice in our intellectual and political tradition isn't being heard. That's not good for anyone.
Comments
1. zatavu - September 12, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Try being a conservative (actually, libertarian) in the humanities. Lilla is correct that in the humanities, conservative or classical liberal ideas are not taken seriously at all. Or taken into consideration. Worse, try being a humanities Ph.D. who uses evolutionary theory in his humanities work. Pro-science AND conservative/libertarian? Try being that guy!
2. anonscribe - September 13, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Zatavu - what's distressing to me is precisely the extent to which classical liberal ideas are not taken seriously. "Right" or "Left," the tradition that deserves more attention in humanities courses is classical liberalism, which is usually brought up only in the form of straw man arguments that are then burned in effigy for the awaiting throng. Strangely, much of the postmodern cultural and literary theory being produced seems deeply concerned with issues of ethics--though these ethical principles are not in themselves analyzed with enough rigor. I think ethics is a place where the tradition Lilla speaks of could find a place in contemporary discussions of the individual and society. Unfortunately, too many young scholars (like me) and their mentors spend their time trying to out-"liberate" one another instead of engaging students with important ethical questions that can be phrased in fairly common language. The postmodern liberals presented as a majority on campuses (and I think this is true in the English departments where I roam) owe a great deal to classically liberal notions such as liberty, equality and duty--they just rarely include discussions of these concepts in a clear and refined way.
But, to suggest a ray of hope, I do think Eve Sedgwick's later work, as well as a great deal of recent study in the 18th and 19th century U.S., is yielding a deeper concern with classical liberal ideas: what is affect but another term for sentiment or sensibility, and what are those but key terms in a discussion about moral education?
3. stuartmunro - September 13, 2009 at 10:02 pm
I must say I was appalled by the degree to which I was subjected to the illconceived notions of Roland Barthes, various negligible post-colonial theorists, and gender theorists while completing a simple literature degree.
These things should form a separate discipline, so that those of us who like books can read them in peace. If the people who push this rubbish down the throats of unconsenting students represented their material honestly, they would have practically no students.
That flagrant piffle like post-modernism can exist on the same campus as a philosophy department is a testament to the lack of influence academic institutions have on anything of substance.
4. zatavu - September 13, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I agree with you, anonscribe. Part of the problem is that liberalism is split up. The political liberals became egalitarians, and have followed Rousseau and Marx down the path of anti-liberal thinking. Science is off in its own corner, doing its thing, ignoring the nonsense going on in the humane sciences and the humanities. The classical liberals primarily only concern themselves with defending the free market, ignoring other aspects of liberal thought. And the liberal arts, which laid the very groundwork for liberalism, is now the main source of anti-liberal thought, including postmodernism. As a result, classical liberals won't give the liberal arts the time of day, even though without a foundation, the house of liberalism cannot stand. Indeed, a house divided cannot stand.
5. togeika - September 14, 2009 at 09:58 am
It would be great to see conservativsm back in the GOP. Moderates used to have a place too. The GOP has painted itself into a corner by their leaders, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Before you know it, it will only be a party of angry white southern men. You can play Duelin' Banjos from Deliverance here.
6. rlpeterson - September 14, 2009 at 10:32 am
I must say that I totally reject Alan Wolfe's assertion that conservative students are somehow more aware of their obligations to others than liberals. In essence, Wolfe is suggesting that his conservative students are inherently more morally aware than his conservative students.
Certainly, liberals do this as well, but that hardly makes it right or constructive.
It's very hard to have intellectual engagement with someone who starts the discussion by attacking your character.
7. ghmus7 - September 14, 2009 at 11:45 am
I am very surprised that anyone would really considet that American Universtites on the whole or in general are truly open to conservative ideas, or would represent those ideas more charitable that beonging in a museun or a mental institution.
Based on the large mid-west University I attended, conservative idease were simply never at all expressed in the classes I took, and the university was overwhelingly liberal, even radical. There is 'us' and 'them' mindset, deeply entrenched. Those that are with 'us', are the globalist, radically, anti-conservative, anti traditional, etc. There are the poeple that fit in, are promoted and are rewarded for upholding the Satus Quo of the University. the 'them' are concervatives who disagree with 'us' and so are to be shunned, ingored or (on the surface) politley tolerated (to show how tolerant we can be!)
If anyone does not think this is a reality, he/she (see i'm trained) has never been a student on the campus of an average American University.
8. mdwoodhull - September 14, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I am a conservative professor at a small liberal arts university. I have heard many times from my liberal colleagues, that conservatism is anti-intellectual and I have heard the scoffs and discounts when conservatism is discussed by my liberal colleagues. I find this viewpoint by liberal professors to be myoptic and out-of-touch with the true conservative nature of our American culture (reflected by the wide-spread conservative values of American university students.) I have noticed "barrios" of liberals and conservatives on campuses; the liberals concentrating in the liberal arts schools and conservatives in the business schools, each playing the same game of protecting their ivory towers by shunning what they view as the opposition both intellectually and in hiring decisions to "keep the nest clean" of the other side of the debate. It's nothing more than the crime of intellectual cleansing, if you will. Within these attitudes, both liberals and conservatives are at least behaving as, anti-intellectuals. A pox on both houses. I have gained respect as a conservative professor by being willing to engage in civil discourse with liberals but still hold true to my conservative values and beliefs. I am also a good listener, which liberals appreciate as I have found liberals to have a deeply ingrained intellectual inferiority complexes that are hard to describe or determine how they got them to begin with? I find my conservative arguments to be more practical-minded and rooted in our rather conservative national culture. I have found my liberal colleagues to be more theoretical and utopian in their arguments. I am not at all worried about liberal professors corrupting the minds of attending students in that diverse ideas are healthy in our classrooms, on our campuses and in our national discourse AND we all know that students will always opt for practical solutions over theoretical ones! I see this as being reflective of the current national debate as well. Obama's liberal (if not Alinsky-like) attempt to implement rather theoretical and utopian healthcare proposals that ignore the monumental scope of fiscal and managerial reality versus more conservative views that promote more practical and surgically focused solutions to healthcare. At the very least, it's great entertainment. It's our culture. It's all good.
9. paultheexpoet - September 14, 2009 at 05:44 pm
When people talk about conservativism as anti-intellectual, they are usually talking about Christianity. While the religion has an intellectual tradition, conservative Christianity has thrown it over board in favor of Biblical literalism. They might also be referring to conservativism's poor historical memory, otherwise they might squirm at how often public moral improvement has been stalled by conservatives (blacks' rights, women's rights, and now gay rights) in the name of God.
10. 11272784 - September 14, 2009 at 05:45 pm
There truly would be value in examining historical liberalism and conservatism, and students would doubtless be surprised to discover that their meanings today are very different from a century ago. Examining both positions based on substance rather than the shrill and content-free propaganda being promulgated today would be a valuable addition to a liberal arts education.
11. zatavu - September 14, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to view these movements historically. For one, the Right and conservatism are not necessarily related to each other in the U.S., though they are in fact connected in Europe. 19th century liberalism has almost nothing in common with 20th century American liberalism, excepting a support for democracy. The Left in Europe is founded on Rousseau and Marx and is much farther to the Left than are contemporary liberals in the U.S., who are our popular Left. 19th Century liberalism is more of less libertarianism in the U.S. (and even that term had an opposite meaning in its founding in Europe). American conservatism is a combination of economic 19th century liberalism and a social theory based on Right-wing political philosophy. Postmodern American liberalism rejects liberalism as a whole, excepting democracy, except when it's inconvenient. The Democratic Party in the U.S. is dominated by postmodern liberals (which is an oxymoron, since postmodernism is anti-liberal), while the Republican Party in the U.S. is dominated by centrists and moderates who reject 19th and 20th century liberalism, accepting a vaguely religious, pragmatist Keynesianism. Right now, they have no ideological foundations to speak of. To accuse the GOP of being dominated by Beck and Limbaugh is laughable, seeing as both men do stand for a great many things, while the GOP currently stands for nothing.
12. dmegivern - September 17, 2009 at 04:36 pm
When I went to get my Ph.D, my advisor gave me one of Camille Paglia's book as a sendoff. I think you'll find plenty of conservatives thriving within the small liberal arts schools peppering our country where they endoctrinate thousands of students a year.
13. dickwhyte - September 18, 2009 at 07:07 pm
All of this is academic and doesn't engage with any ideas whatsoever. Who cares about the left and the right - these are nothing but abstractions, illusions. It is the actual issues that must be discussed. I am a tutor and the only thing I care about is encouraging people to think through ideas of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, politics, and so on. The point is not to convert someone to a particular way of thinking, but to open discourse around ideas. And anyone who thinks that any kind of repression/supression is okay should not be teaching. The job of teachers is to educate children on what it means to be a better person. The only way to do this is to be anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-marginalization of people based on their beliefs. Hence, it is also about protecting the right to be conservative or liberal, as long as these views do not promote hate in any way (toward different races, different sexes, and different political views, and so on).
Hence, if your conservative values include thinking African Americans, or women, should have different rights than white men, then you should not be allowed to teach. If conservative values do not include these things, then there is no problem. It is the issues which matter, not the abstract political ideal. And the issue is gaining equivalence (not equality) for ALL those who take part in a society.
And at this point we should all be able to see the purpose of postmodern critique. Postmodernity argues that we cannot totalize, that we cannot create unities. By talking about conservatives as "one" thing, rather than millions of individuals each viewing conservatism as a slightly different thing, we are able to promote anti-conservatism, based on nothing but a stereotype of conservatives. Postmodernist theory argues there is no "conservative," there are only individuals holding views, some of which may match up with the abstraction which we have come to call conservatism, but many which will not.
Can we not begin to approach a both/and situation. That is - the idea of universal healthcare is *both* a necessity *and* something that would be very hard to achieve given the current economic system (rather than an either/or problem).
The point is no longer to make people either left, or right, but to make them *both* left *and* right. To dissolve the differences and then focus on the issues at hand, rather than abstractions of reality.
All the best,
Dick Whyte
14. mainiac - September 20, 2009 at 10:47 am
Please forgive whatever essentialist notions are used here.
While working on a post-colonial dissertation at a state university in the American Southeast, I became painfully aware of the ideological bent of many faculty members. The right dismissed certain marxist methodologies offhand, (post-colonialism, what the hell?)while left leaning faculty members derided (always already racist/sexist/homophobe/antigreen)faculty who "had blinders on in the(post)modern world." Eventually I zig zagged my way out of that ideological fighting cage, and learned to recognize an important non academic phenomenon: that the public at large is very aware of effects that ideologies and ideological remedies have in American society. To the public, the university is an ideological instrument.
Currently we are witnessing a popular reaction to a perceived confiscatory "collectivism," perpetrated by perceived "radical academics" in the Obama Administration. That collectivism entails severe limits on "normal" material practices.
Ultimately, people ask, with the Humanities, why pay for "education" that is directed at destroying a the very culture citizens reside in?
15. bcc_meteorites - September 22, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Conservatism seems to be neither a tradition nor pathology but rather a pathological tradition?