The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

Academics have long served as a rich talent pool on which American presidents could draw to fill thousands of key posts in the federal government, from high cabinet officials to members of humble advisory panels. In recent years, however, the process by which such nominees are confirmed by the Senate has been hampered by a welter of paperwork, a thicket of intrusive questions unrelated to the job, and a swamp of petty senatorial disputes. One critic has likened the process to "death by a thousand paper cuts." What can be done about the problem? Why have previous attempts at reforming the process failed? If asked to serve by the president of the United States, would you submit yourself to this process? Read more...

I'd be very interested in working for the federal gov't in Washington. I actually looked into how to get my name in a pool somewhere and it's a very complicated process that seems open to folks with non-Humanities degrees other than political science! I contacted the Dept of Education at one point and asked them what type of job someone with a PhD in English could have there; the reply I got was something like, "if you're qualified for an open job, you will know from the job announcement." I've looked many times and have never seen an open position there for which someone like me could qualify. The appointment process may be convuluted, but it also seems open to just a select group, despite the fact that many of us would be willing to serve.

We had an old saying among us military officers, "Sworn in, then sworn at." True, bad English, but it makes the point that the government is wrecked with spiteful officials who resist bringing in new blood. They fear intellegence because it is powerful. Knowledge will win issue arguments everytime, and, let's face it, most academicians I know are painfully honest (a trait poorly respected in politics today). With the liberal blather permiating every facet of the media, it becomes no wonder that people question academics. The politicians must be right, afterall, because they are on TV and we are not.

Regrettably, there is such a thing as a Washington type--the people who bounce from one staff job to another and never really leave. If you want to work in Washington and are not sufficiently connected/experienced to move in at the top, you'd best reconcile yourself to the prospect of being a Washington type. Move there, get a gig, network, network, network and prepare for a life in a bureaucracy. Once you're addicted to the salary and fringe benefits it's hard to leave.

As to academics in Washington--do we really want them there? If they could go there, share their expertise, help change the world, and then return to academe, OK. But what if they come down with Potomac fever and only return to academe when they have to? Do we want them then? Should we be a fallback position for the ambitious? (Kudos to Harvard for only giving two years of leave, no matter what position you hold.) You've got to choose one side or the other and dedicate yourself to the task at hand. Many former academics like William Bennett were never really serious academics and they hang out at think tanks and on the rubber chicken circuit. Some serious politicians have successfully made the transition. John Brademas did a wonderful job positioning NYU for the greatness it now has and David Boren is doing an excellent job at Oklahoma, using his skills and experience to move his university forward.

But Donna Shalala? She held onto her cabinet post when an unelected and unappointed person was allowed to take over the most important issue of our time for a person in Shalala's job--health care. This person then made a total hash of the issue, going behind closed doors and spinning out vast bureaucratic dreams and fantasies that never became reality. Shalala should have resigned on the spot. We don't need people like that (in Washington or in universities). In fairness, the one person to resign from the Clinton administration in an act of conscience (however you feel about welfare reform) was Peter Edelman, who happened to also be a solid academic. When others were lied to (Sec'y Albright, e.g.) they clung to their jobs, though Sec'y Albright was never a serious academic like her mentor Zbig.

We need the expertise of academics but Potomac fever is a powerful malady and what we often get are people who become neither fish nor fowl but rather institute types, after-dinner speakers, talk show guests, etc. The money corrupts, as does the fleeting affair with power.

Hello All:

Thank you for the several interesting comments. Regarding academics in Washington, I must admit that (although being one) I am skeptical that many academics could truly be the best people for various executive branch jobs.
Why? It is very simple and few can deny this fact: The vast majority of academics, especially in the humanities (i.e. English, history, philosophy, etc) are liberal to the extreme and this, I think, is what both alienates Republicans from joining the ranks of academe (many are "blacklisted"...just examine the remarks of certain Columbia university history professors that clearly show their vitriolic and irrational hatred toward conservatives and America. ).
In my experience I have found Democrats to be more entrenched in their beliefs than most Republicans. Liberals bring an inherent bias to Washington. It is almost impossible to be "liberal" and "objective." I don't care how many Ph.D's you have. There are many a professor in this nation who do not deserve the title of "Dr." They claim to be "open-minded" and cling to freedom of speech while they want nothing more than 100% of voting Americans to be either a Democrat or, at least, Independent.
Dr. Bill Bennet is one of the very few great academics that has served in a political position with great integrity.

It is almost impossible to be a conservative Republican and ever expect to excel in academe because the scales are tipped against you. The ivory tower has become a haven for liberal/socialist, America-hating, professors that treat their political beliefs as a religion.

As for me, I am a professor and a conservative Republican. I sincerely believe that Washing needs more Anne Coulters because she speaks with principle and conviction. Plus, she's a good historian and Washington needs more Republican historians in order to revise the "revisionist" liberal/socialist history that is continuall fed to undergraduates these days.

The founders would be gravely disappointed at the state of political parties today.

T. Harris

"As to academics in Washington--do we really want them there? If they could go there, share their expertise, help change the world, and then return to academe, OK."

Professor Harris repeats one of the right wing's favorite mantras about the liberal bias in higher education. I'm not quite sure how his comments address the issue of this discussion, but they are worth a response nonetheless. The evidence about the political leanings of academics is far more mixed than the right wing would have us believe. If my recollection is accurate, there was an article in the Chronicle some time ago that reported on a survey of academics' positions on a number of issues. The report indicated that academics varied quite a bit in their positions, with a significant proportion holding conservative views. But even if we accept that academics, especially in certain fields, are mostly liberal, the right wing's explanation for this phenomenon is not the only possible interpretation, and probably isn't the correct one. Basically, the right wing seems to view this liberal bias as the result of some sort of political process. In other words, liberal academics took power in the academy (especially in certain disciplines) and excluded conservatives. I would propose an alternate explanation. Academics are, as a group, one of the most, if not the most, intelligent and highly educated groups of people in the society. In theory, if not always in practice, they are committed to seeking and imparting truth and knowledge. Perhaps academics tend to hold liberal views because liberal views are more often right than are conservative views. I suppose in today's political climate the notion that there is truth that can be accurately discerned is hopelessly naive and old school. After all, we have a president who wasn't elected, who presides over the most dishonest and inept administration ever, whose policies have been disastrous, but who still might be reelected. So maybe academics don't belong in Washington. Knowledge and facts don't fit well in a land of lies, spin, and permanent campaigning. And by the way, before the ad hominem attacks come in, I'll state that if you knew my positions on various issues, you would have a very hard time categorizing me as liberal or conservative.

Dear "PSYCHOLOGIST"

Do you have a REAL name?

Please, let us know, O.K.? E-mail me, we can correspond.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You state...

"Academics are, as a group, one of the most, if not the most, intelligent and highly educated groups of people in the society. In theory, if not always in practice, they are committed to seeking and imparting truth and knowledge."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ah, I hate to be the one to tell you this but academics who are NOT in the so-called "Hard Sciences" use a process officially called "Persuasive Research" all the time.

Persuasive Research is where you do your research to support you premise and you only use data in your argument or research that supports your premise.

The rationalization is that this is how progress is made. Of course, this is a hard sell to the Life Sciences, Chemistry, Physics and even some of the Psychology crowd, but only if they have been associated with those academics who are not in the disciplines who accept this sort of research. This sort of research is a mainstay of academe in some disciplines. I might add that some of is is pretty well done, also.

So, dear Psychologist friend and colleague, you see that there IS a possiblility that a certain amount of Liberal bias exists in some areas of academe, but not in other areas. In fact, it is just the luck of the draw so to speak, because with this persuasive research, you can be whatever you want to be. It would also be possible to have a Conservative bias if you build discipline on persuasive research methods. With this system you can choose your bias or choose not to be biased. Call it a "bias du jour", if you will. As you well know, human behavior is only predictable statistically. It is impossible to predict if academe will move to the right or even further to the left in the future.

Statistically, like it or not, good or bad, right or wrong, there is a Liberal lean to academe. Perhaps this is a good thing or perhaps not. Also, I might make a comment in passing that business people tend to lean to the Conservative side. So, just as there is a tendancy of hard science folk to either be atheist or to handle their science in a different manner than their religion, there is a tendancy to be Liberal if you are a social science academic.

Those are the facts.

They kind of separate the NASTY Bush Republicans from the HARRI Kerry Democrats.

Re:

After all, we have a president who wasn't elected, who presides over the most dishonest and inept administration ever, whose policies have been disastrous, but who still might be reelected.

Dear Michael,

It is awkward when you take the position that academics may well be liberal because they're highly educated and intelligent, then exhibit a poor knowledge of elementary history and civics. Bush was elected. All recounts showed that he won in Florida. The margin was small (500+ votes) but always in his favor. Within our system one can lose the popular vote, secure the 270 electoral college votes required and still be elected. The fact that the election was taken to the courts does not change the fact that he won. The charge that he 'stole' the election is not supported by facts. Similarly, the charge that a million African Americans were disenfranchised is simply false. No evidence of a single case of disenfranchisement was ever adduced and one of the investigative bodies (the Civil Rights Commission) was presided over by Mary Berry, a strongly partisan democrat. The precincts that were the cause of the democrats' concerns were supervised (overwhelmingly) by democrats. The systems that were challenged had been in place for 20 years and no concerns were expressed when those systems yielded victories on two occasions for Bill Clinton.

Whether Bush's administration is the most corrupt and inept in history is certainly open to debate. You might want to read about the Grant and Harding administrations, e.g. "Inept" can mean a number of things; the left characteristically accuses the current administration of mendacity rather than ineptness. In that connection you might want to review David Halberstam's account of the Tonkin Gulf resolution, how it was obtained, what the president knew and when he knew it, and the role of his secretary of defense in that process. At last count the number of American troops killed in Vietnam exceeds that in Iraq by a factor of 55 to 1.

What your letter suggests, in fact, is not that academics are more intelligent and more highly educated, but rather that they are capable of parroting partisan commonplaces despite their education and intelligence. It also suggests a capacity for ignorance and exaggeration that should not, one would hope, be a characteristic of an educated person.

p.s. When you give the Chronicle your email address you sacrifice the anonymity which you have apparently sought. Have a nice day in the office of psychological services.

To: Psychologist

You said:

"After all, we have a president who wasn't elected, who presides over the most dishonest and inept administration ever, whose policies have been disastrous, but who still might be reelected. So maybe academics don't belong in Washington. Knowledge and facts don't fit well in a land of lies, spin, and permanent campaigning."

As an historian of America, I must say that you have not read the U.S. Constitution lately. Our president, whether you like it or not, was LEGALLY and constitutionally elected in 2000 and again in 2004. As many in the future confederacy viewed President Lincoln immediately preceding the Civil War, he, too, was elected in a the manner dictated by the Constitution of the United States.
Of course, many in the southern states didn't accept his election as "legal." Like it or not, you cannot rewrite the Constitution and history, too. President Bush is and always was the legally elected President of the United States. Plus, there were three elections during the 19th century (Jefferson vs Adams, Jackson vs John Q. Adams, and President Cleveland's defeat in which the winner did not obtain the the majority of the popular vote.

Here are some undeniable facts about liberal academe and those who can't get over the counter-culture of the 60's to realize that President Reagan did, indeed, initiate a political realignment in favor of conservatism.

I think the best way to answer you is to quote from Anne Coulter's new book _How To Talk To A Liberal: If You Must.
Here are some of her main points when it comes to liberals:

1.) Liberal academics have the absolute CONVICTION that there is one set of rules for you, and another, completely different set of rules for everyone else.

2.) Teddy Kennedy crawls out of Boston Harbor with a quart of Scotch in one pocket and a pair of pantyhose in the other, and Democrats hail him as their party's spiritual leader.

3.) Want to make liberals angry? Defend the United States.

4.) In a public setting, liberals will work themselves into a dervish-like trance and start incanting inanities: "Bush lied, kids died!" "Rascist!" "Fascist!" "Fire Rumsfeld!" "HALLIBURTON!!"

5.) Liberals are full of conspiracy theories. They tend to invoke weird PERSONAL OBSESSIONS like a conversational deux ex machina to trump all the facts. You think you're talking about the war in Iraq and suddenly you start getting a disquisition on Nixon, oil, the neo-conservatives, and Vietnam!

6.) Liberals have a finite number of memorized talking points, which they often try to shoehorn into unrelated events.

7.) Worst of all, the biggest impediment to arguing with a liberal is the simple fact that most refuse to argue! Liberals' battle of wits is to say "Bush lied!" in front of an adoring brain washed audience and be wildly applauded for their "courage."

I am 31 years old and consider most professional historians to be a disgrace to their profession because they tow the liberal party line rather than teach "facts" or listen to opposing viewpoints.

President Bush is the man who wakes up each morning and had the sole responsibility to keep all Americans safe...this includes the anti-American academics who, if they lived in the beloved Stalinist dreamworld, would never have the chance to voice even ONE opinion!

I say, if you don't like our system, then I'd bet the North Korean army is hiring. If you hate our good president so much then move on in to your land of "equality."

You're just another brainwashed liberal.

T. H.

Guess what, TH, my son is a senior at the U.S. Naval Academy and I am extremely proud of him. I believe he and his classmates will do an excellent job of defending our nation and the right of people like you to spout drivel. He could very well put his life on the line to defend our nation. Just curious, did you ever serve?

Interesting reading your screed. From a psychological perspective, it is filled with the mechanism of projection: accusing someone else of that of which you are guilty. This is a traditional right wing ploy.

And by the way, neither you nor Historian has addressed the rather tongue in cheek point I made in my original post, if in fact you even understand what it was.

Finally, I already predicted that ad hominem attacks would come and mentioned that I cannot be categorized as liberal or conservative. I am not a liberal and I am not a conservative. In fact, the notion of some unidimensional political spectrum is nonsense, or more precisely, propaganda. Both political parties in our dysfunctional political environment need to create an "us vs. them" environment so that the voters won't realize that neither party is addressing the truly major challenges facing us.

Jeesh, I can't believe I went and took the bait again. Time to go coach some kids and get back to what matters.

The truth is that as politicians vie for their posts through peoples votes (either the trust is valued on the majority of the electorate) the presidential appointees has to retain some evidence of trust on the electorate.Hence, the ballot box is not involved this time rather the peoples opinion is expressed through their elected representatives.
The process is the problem but the appearing before the senate committee should not be adjudged as a delay(as such questioning is very necessary) In the case where official custom issue is being used as a tactice or a draw back process lacks substance.
As the government ,senate know that their actions is reflected on the level or response the academics conducts in relation with their calls,and a fith of the total calls turns down the request, there is every need for reconsideration to take place not necessarily to discontinue the process but to remove questions that does not make provisions for direct implications like in Mr Helms and Dam tussle in the senate.
In all one should think that any device taken should always ensure that the trust of the electorate representatives are maintianed if not the trust of the electorate on the president slides to the list informing the consideration for a change.
Benjamin.Nweke
(lagos-nigeria)

To: Psychologist

Yes Sir, I did serve. I was in the army for a 3-year enlistment. However, I do want to point out that I NEVER saw combat and I do not consider myself (in the military world) equal to those who are currently liberating Fallujah, Iraq.

Although, sir, you "anticipated" my response, you still did not answer the points I included regarding the manner in which liberals respond. I would like to read your answers to Ms. Coulter's points regarding liberals that I included in my previous message.

You might not consider yourself a "liberal." Yet, any person who brands our president as having secured an "illegitimate" victory in 2000 is, well, ignorant of the United States Constitution the many presidential elections in the 19th century that were decided by extremely close margins.

In your message you did not mention a single reason why, based upon your previous messages, you shoudn't be considered a liberal.

Now, is "liberal" a bad thing. No. However, as someone who served (did you...congrats to your offspring, but I'm speaking of yourself), did you ever slip on a combat boot?

When you made the completely irrational comment in a previous message that President Bush was, in your obviously uneducated opinion, an "illegitimate president," you showed your true colors.

You should have the courage to decide whether you're a Republican or Democrat. It is quite difficult to be a true "Independent" in our current political system.

Your response, or might I emphasize, LACK of responses, to the several points I made in my previous post about narrow-minded liberals, such as yourself, who claim absolute knowledge of what is "right."

Finally, Mr. Psychologist, if you're such a wonderful scholar, why aren't you a REAL doctor, that is, an M.D. psychiatrist and not a "can't make it in medical school" wanna-be doctor, psychologist?

It has been fun sparring with a mind as narrow as yours. But, other duties call. I bid you adieu. I shan't check the posts to read your liberal, socialist drivel any longer. Good luck with coaching the kids.

They are more on your liberal intellectual level.

T.H.

P.S. Since your identity is not concealed, you're welcome to send your illogical, liberal, anti-Bush, anti-American, thoughts to my private Email. I welcome them.

If you're such a patriot, sir, why not visit your local VA and spout your anti-war nonsense there. You'll see that once removed from a college campus, your thoughts do not match those of the majority of Americans.

After all, President Bush won a second term in the most fair and balanced manner. All, of course, to the chagrin of liberals nationwide. Geez, I'm so glad to see Democrats whine and cry.

Again, if you wish to respond then do so to my private Email. The forum shouldn't be filled with posts attacking individuals on a personal level.

T.H.

Tim Harris makes some good points, but I think quoting Anne Coulter is a bit over the top. Let's face it; there are closed minded individuals on both the left and the right. The right in this country wants to make believe there is big liberal boogey man who controls all thought in this country; all thought except for those brave conservatives who dare to be counter-cultural.

If this election illustrated anything, it is that the big, liberal boogey man is a myth. Moreover, try talking to some conservatives. You will get the much the same ideological rigidity, but it will be an "I am right and my positions are so right they cannot even be argued with and if you do you hate America" sort of mentality.

Liberals who hold such positions are rapidly going extinct like the dinosaurs. They are being replaced by mamals who are better suited to the current environment, more numerous, and just as rigid. I think Anne Coulter is strong proof of that.

Tim,

-Never used the term "illegitimate" regarding Bush. Please don't make up quotes.

-Never said I was an Independent. I've been a registered voter with one of the two major parties my entire adult life.

-Never wanted to be a physician and don't consider myself to be a doctor, real or otherwise.

-Never claimed to be a scholar. I'm a practicing clinician.

-Socialist? Anti-war? Where?

-I worked for a year in a VA hospital. Have great respect for the folks who served.

-Never claimed to know what's right about everything. I leave that to ideologues of all stripes.

-You would prefer to keep personal attacks out of this forum. Me too. You've been spewing some pretty nasty and completely unsupported personal attacks at me, so why don't you stop?

-My two biggest complaints about Bush/Cheney are that they lie repeatedly and that they are incompetent. That's not an ideological critique. They also are anything but conservative. How does this brand me as liberal? I had the same complaints about Lyndon Johnson and his administration's conduct of the Vietnam War.

-You haven't been sparring with me. You've been sparring with a pathetic series of straw men. This has been fun, though.

Correction...

"Liberals who hold such positions are rapidly going extinct like the dinosaurs. They are being replaced by mamals who are better suited to the current environment, more numerous, and just as rigid. I think Anne Coulter is strong proof of that."

Science has found thanks to scientists like Luis Alverez that
the dinosaurs became extinct because of a collision of the Earth with an asteroid. So, this makes the mammals mere opportunists, not successors.

Please, in the future, for the sake of Conservative America, choose your analogies more carefully, O.K.?

You are right; dinosaurs are a bad analogy. However, they are good metaphor.

As someone who holds some liberal views and some conservative views, I see myself as completely objective in this. Liberal ideas as they once existed are the possession of an increasingly smaller segment of the population.

Metaphor, not analogy...

Point well taken.

Politics in America seems to swing like a pendulum through Liberal and Conservative ideology athough it seemingly defies mathematical or physical prediction. I believe that is because the swing is dampened by the issues of safety, security and Civil Liberty.

Maybe at some future time we will get Liberal again in politics inthe majority, but I would not place all of my faith in that prediction.

Some incredible violation in Civil Liberties will have to occur first to make us remember that loss of Civil Liberty can be just as serious as terrorism and have just as dire of a set of consequences.

No welcome in Washington