next »

[Zarkov]

The recent Chron had an article about a new documentary, Brainwashing 201, by director Evan Maloney.  The theme of this film is that Republicans are second class citizens in academia, since it is given over to a left wing agenda.

I've never seen this in my experience, and most of my colleagues seem pretty moderate, and evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

Are Republicans persecuted in academia, or is the director just trying to create an image as a right-wing Michael Moore?

[%sig%]

[Prytania]

My CC is crawling with Republicans (fiscal conservatives, not moral ones, at least).

Republicans aren't persecuted in academia; they only should be.

[Asa]

While there are more liberals than conservatives in my discipline and in most humanities I would guess, the Republicans we do have are not persecuted.  There may be some institutions where it would be quite difficult to find a Republican on the English, History, or other liberal arts faculty, but I have never worked or studied at one.

When you factor in the business, science, and engineering faculty, it is a pretty balanced picture.  For every Democrat in the humanities, there is a (better paid) Republican over in the Business school or Engineering Labs.

[asst_prof]

Zarkov:

Like you, I've observed that most college faculty (my colleagues and otherwise) are socially, politically, and fiscally moderate.  I just don't see the rampant left-wing bias that one hears so much about among college faculty at my university.  Sure, I do encounter some uber liberals, but I also encounter some ultra conservatives.  However, by and large, the faculty seem to be very rational and moderate when it comes to their politics.  Since these are intelligent people we're talking about, they tend to support candidates, issues, and positions that make good rational sense.  I hear a great deal about how left wing academia is supposed to be, but all those left wingers aren't where I work.  

As for conservatives being persecuted, I can only speak for myself and state that I encourage diverse points of view in my classes (even if I don't agree with a particular person's position).  I tell my students that the university should be a place where one can think the unthinkable and speak the unspeakable.  

As for the Republican Party, my only concerns are about the fundamentalist wing of the party.  I think that they do represent a danger to our country. Of course, I would say that about fundamentalists, in general.  Other than that extreme wing, I have no problems whatsoever with the Republican Party.

[connecticut native]

Pyritania: why should Republicans be persecuted?  What makes you say such a thing?  And what forms should the persecution take?

[%sig%]

[jjphd]

It's nice to know that some people don't consider the political party dedicated to 'angry white men' to be a threat.

[%sig%]

[Prytania]

"Pyritania: why should Republicans be persecuted? What makes you say such a thing? And what forms should the persecution take?"


Answer: George W. Bush

Oh, what I'd do to have Richard Nixon back.

[sidey]

Prytania wrote:

> Answer: George W. Bush
>
> Oh, what I'd do to have Richard Nixon back.

Ah, but you can.  Just tune into reruns of Futurama...

[Zarkov]

asst_prof wrote:

>..
> As for the Republican Party, my only concerns are about the
> fundamentalist wing of the party.  I think that they do
> represent a danger to our country. Of course, I would say that
> about fundamentalists, in general.  Other than that extreme
> wing, I have no problems whatsoever with the Republican Party.

My advisor, who was a Republican party activist, pretty much felt the same way.  Of course, most moderates don't go about saying it out loud.

[big dipper]

Two reasons: 01) the Evil Genius: Condee Rice. 02) the Evil Ignoramus: George "Jethro" Bush

[Tory]

   It's not clear whether the problem lies with Republicans or Conservatives, and a number of postings note that these aren't necessarily the same thing.  There are many liberal or moderate Republicans loyal to their party, but leery of people to their right, especially religious conservatives or "fundies."  Similarly, there are lots of of conservatives, especially foreign policy "realists" or paleoconservative traditionalists like the late Russell Kirk, who loathe George W. Bush.

  My sense is that aggressively partisan politics, (i.e Republican vs. Democrat) goes over badly in academe.  People might be active once they have tenure, but it's seen as something to keep out of the office and classroom.

  That being said, I also think there is a massive prejudice against conservatives in academe.  Humanities are the worst for this sort of thing.  By conservative I don't mean knuckleheads like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, but serious scholars ranging in outlook from Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest in Russian history, Clyde Wilson in American history and the late M. E. Bradford in literature.  All these men are quite old because younger men or women of similar views would have little hope of achieving tenure at a research university.  The only exception at a major university is Princeton's Robert George, who represents a certain Catholic cast of mind.  If a young scholar wrote for the New Republic, New York Review of Books, or the Nation, I suspect they would be complimented for engaging a wider readership.  If they wrote for counterparts on the intellectual right such as Chronicles or the American Conservative, they'd be branded fascists.  Even some neoconservatives like the egregous David Frum or Dinesh D'Sousa play this game, like Russian  peasants casting someone from the sleigh in the hopes of distracting the wolves.  Most academics don't realize either the complexity of conservative thinking in the US (and Britain and Europe) or appreciate how much they exclude its representaives from a fair hearing.  Do British authors like Roger Scruton, Andrew Roberts, or Simon Heffer get the same hearing as their NYT and NYRB counterparts?  What of traditionalists here in the US?  Even where
partisan consideration's don't enter into play, the hegemony of race/class/gender in humanities research excludes many thoughtful people who approach history, literature, and philosophy from other perspectives.

   I'm not a troll, so I hope the post won't be dismissed out of hand.  I'd be curious to see what thoughtful responses this post might spark among readers who seem very committed on this issues.  Is there room for traditionalists or conservatives in the academy?

[Tory]

   It may be worth noting that Scott McConnell who edits the American Conservative has a Ph.D. in French history from Columbia.  Other traditional conservatives writing in Chronicles like Thomas Fleming, Paul Gottfried, Christian Kopff, and Philip Jenkins also hold doctorates, have records of scholarly publication, and are fluent in several languages.  This is pretty far from the impression of "conservatives" as fundamentalists or corporate shills that one might gather from talk among academics.

[k16]

Folks here have stumbled into the truth, namely, it is religious conservatives who are seriously persecuted in academia.  Most of us keep our mouths shut, if we are in grad school and or on a tenure track.  Mere knowledge of our beliefs torpedoes careers, as is easily evinced by the hostile bigotry expressed here.

[Hamster]

Not being a humanities prof, I can't really comment from personal experience on whether there's room for conservatives in that side of the academy.

I'd only want to note that, in the natural sciences, it would be strange for academics to be denied tenure simply because they're Republicans or Tories.  I know many conservatives who are tenured faculty in science departments.  Presumably this is in part due to the relative ease with which much scientific research can be conducted without explicitly bringing politics into consideration.

I suppose a right-wing religious fundamentalist might have a hard time lasting in a stem-cell lab, and a left-wing conservationist might raise a few eyebrows in a geology department that specializes in petroleum science, but apart from such obvious incompatibilities I see plenty of room on this side of the academy for most political leanings, left or right.

[%sig%]

[an aussie wades in]

What is a "repuiblican" and what do they stand for in an academic setting?Seriously, I am uncertain of what you mean in the US context.  

In Aust we have John Howard, a conservative, whose government has been responsible for the slashing of federal funding to universities, and the tying of grants to the 'special interests' of government. He regin has seen many academics become afraid to speak out, and be truly critical. For me, this spells the end of academic dissent and debate. This, to me means that conservatism is not really conducive to academia. It is reductionist an exclusionary.

As a migrant woman, I feel that I have no other alternative than to be critical of the conservatives, particulary in academia. My voice would never be heard.