next »

[Cicero]

I think "Independent" is severely misguided by the crude generalizations made about conservative thought.  Would Rush make a good academic?  Obviously not.  But T.S. Eliot was also a "conservative."  Would anyone deny his contribution, not just to poetry but also to literary scholarship?  "Independent" seems to suffer from historical myopia:  just because liberals set the agenda of the American university today does not mean that it has always been so and will always be so.  Of course, if success at "being an academic" is defined in terms of liberal polemic, then only liberals will be successful academics.  But such a definition is contingent, and, I would argue, ultimately too weak to hold for long.    

Even beyond that . . . I characterize myself as a conservative (I am opposed to abortion, tend toward tradition in cultural matters, support the war), yet I feel that I certainly "get it" when it comes to my field (which is lit. with a strong interdisciplinary bent).  In fact, your hypothesis is easily disproved, as I am well-published, teach well (according to all the standards we have), and am thriving in academe.  So, my success refutes your claim.

[biased dem soc]

If Ivories are good indicators of what's going on in the rest of academia, I'd say it's true academics are more liberal.

In 2004, 90 percent of campaign contributions made by faculty and staff of Princenton went to Kerry or the DNC.  Democrat candidates wrangled over $91,000 from Princetonians.  Republicans took $250.  There were large contributions to independents as well.

I think the reason liberalism is more common in academia is self-selection.  It's the same reason Republicans outnumber Dems 4-1 in the military.  Most of the truly brilliant conservative scholars lean more libertarian, I've noticed.  That's probably because libertarian beliefs lend themselves to humanities' studies more readily.

[watching]

Hah. Ivories=Ivies

Freudian slip, maybe.