<p>So I'm a freshman now and have had my suspicions that academia is full of liberals opposed to teaching a variety of viewpoints largely confirmed. Nonetheless, I eventually want to pursue a PhD and become a professor of either Political Science or History (can't decide which) with an area studies concentration in the Middle East.</p>
<p>I know that in the United States, academia is radically liberal (even though it wasn't always this way) - however, I'm wondering if this is the case so much in other countries. I mean, I figure Israel will be open to at least some right-wingers on foreign policy, but what about otherwise?</p>
<p>Can anyone think of any universities - in the U.S. or abroad - that you would imagine are open to such diversity of thought? As a conservative, I can not see any major elite institution in the U.S. like an Ivy even remotely tolerating someone who wants to be an academic who favors Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huntington, and Francis Fukuyama over Edward Said and Noam Chomsky. I'd like to get a PhD and become a professor, but sometimes I feel like it's harder for me to be conservative on my college campus than gay - it's ridiculous (there's only one conservative professor out of the entire Poli Sci and History Departments here and we're buds, but otherwise, I'm screwed).</p>
<p>Since this appears to be a topic on which you are quite passionate and somewhat personally involved, I will preface my response by noting that I am an independent, an engineer, and work in a field that is dominated at the highest levels by very conservative individuals. I am somewhat liberal in some areas, somewhat conservative in others. So let’s begin:</p>
<p>
Just to be clear, you are saying that (a) there are a certain set of viewpoints that have been confirmed and that (b) academic liberals won’t teach them. Correct? If you have a strong position and like the fight (as I would hope to be true given your aspirations) that seems like almost the ideal situation. Being one of the herd sounds, well, unfulfilling.</p>
<p>FWIW, the only friends I personally have in the fields of political science are actually on the conservative side of the spectrum, although it should be observed that as an engineer I don’t have many such friends.</p>
<p>
Mostly, yes. At its core, conservatism is the belief that the “correct way” has already been discovered, and that on its own does not lend itself to the task of discovery that is at the core of academia. It seems that most of the work on the conservative side of academia lies in trying to prove existing theories, and while that is absolutely important work it is difficult and admittedly thankless.</p>
<p>
If you are looking for countries where the academics will largely toe a right-wing line, then I would suggest countries where that right-wing line is being actively supported by the state. Now, finding a list of countries that have a substantial academic presence and toe a particular line is difficult if you do not specify what that line is - a given academic region may veer hard right in some areas while simultaneously veering hard left in others.</p>
<p>
I can assure you that those institutions MORE than tolerate such people, they graduate them in not insignificant numbers and send them to prestigious grad schools and employers. I think you are selling a lot of people short, yourself included.</p>
<p>
College should not be easy, especially if you have real aspirations in your field.</p>
I have good friends with whom I disagree adamantly, from card-carrying communists to members of far-right political families. My friendship with them is enhanced by our arguments, not diminished.</p>
<p>I would suggest you give up the idea that you and you alone have the one and only truth. Much of what is done in academia is based on the understanding that our knowledge is always incomplete. Those liberal professors may provide you an avenue to reinforce your opinions, but if you cannot admit to the possibility that they might also be at least in part correct… then what can you possibly learn that you do not already know?</p>
<p>You spoke of “viewpoints largely confirmed” but “largely” is not the same as “entirely”, and considering that your entire prospective field is based on the way people think - something that is fluid both geographically and chronologically - I am not sure that your statement is going to hold up. Very few positions in political science have been “largely confirmed”, and that is why there is still debate.</p>
<p>There are a number of universities that would gladly enough hire a professor that turns out to be a conservative, particularly in poli sci (as it suits them to have a diversity of perspectives represented), but few indeed that would hire someone who wears their ideological loyalty so openly on their sleeve. A researcher is supposed to be open-minded to any perspective or discovery. Despite the liberal bias in academia, most existing professors managed to impress upon their peers upon getting hired not that they could pass a liberal litmus test, but that they were looking to perform research, discover truth, and teach students how to think. </p>
<p>Thanks for your input. However, there are a few things that I would like to clear up.</p>
<p>Cosmicfish, no I am not saying there are a confirmed set of viewpoints that liberals will not teach. I am saying that I have had my suspicions confirmed that many professors will not teach different approaches and perspectives on issues.</p>
<p>For instance, in the area of Middle East, Bernard Lewis is probably the most prominent name out there. However, no one in my university’s Poli Sci Department teaches him except this one professor I am close with. In other words, hundreds of students graduate every year with a major in Poli Sci and have focused on the Middle East, but have only been introduced to the ideas of Edward Said and Noam Chomsky, and have not read anything by someone like Samuel Huntington.</p>
<p>My problem is not necessarily that the overwhelming majority of professors in Poli Sci and History are liberal. I think everyone is entitled to think what they want and to even preach it a little bit. My problem (and my professor friend’s issue) is when these liberal professors pretend that Bernard Lewis was not a contribution to the field at all. My problem with liberal professors teaching, for instance, the Arab-Israeli Conflict is not that they favor Edward Said over Bernard Lewis. My problem is when they distort facts to say things like the Palestinian Arabs are the indigenous inhabitants descended from the Canaanites and then go on as if that is the only line of thought and do not even bring up the concerns of even moderates on the issue like Fareed Zakaria.</p>
<p>I would also like to clarify what I mean by “conservative.” Like most self-identified conservatives, I do not mean in it the literal sense of wanting to keep everything the same. I define the term as “pro-Western values” being pro-Capitalist (to any degree, little or small), pro-democracy (or, I prefer a republic actually), and pro-human rights (religious minorities, LGBT citizens, women, children, journalists, etc.). To accomplish these ideals, methods like a belief in some degree of a free-market are used and a staunch international foreign policy (some call it “neoconservative” or imperialist) that does not frown upon intervening heavily in the affairs of other states and peoples. Also important is a slight lack of political correctness. For instance, Bernard Lewis has spoken about how he thinks most Muslims are peaceful (unlike, say, Daniel Pipes or Geert Wilders thinking that Islam is inherently violent) but he also recognizes the role of the religion in developing a society different from western institutions more prone to things like terrorism against Europeans and oppression of homosexuals.</p>
<p>Now, about my question on which places would be more open to right-wing academics. Let me be clear: I do not really care if the majority of the professors at the university are liberal or conservative. I do not care if most Israeli professors, for instance, are right-wing on foreign policy. What I do care about, however, is if they are open to diverse viewpoints. What there viewpoints are is not too important (although I think any university where everyone thinks the same thing obviously needs to do self-evaluate).</p>
<p>For the point about your thinking liberal institutions do tolerate conservatives, since they graduate them, I have a couple things to say. For one, the people I have named like Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington are old and dying off. Although Middle Eastern Politics and History used to have some right-wing voices and their Alma maters may have graduated them, that was a long time ago. Academia was not always as liberal as it is today. If you look, you’ll see the youngsters are all like Edward Said and my left-wing Middle Eastern History professor agrees with me. Additionally, it is still a huge extra challenge to be conservative in many programs. Keep in mind that Newt Gingrich was revered by his PhD adviser during his study, but was denied tenure after making his views known.</p>
<p>And finally, I think we have a misunderstanding here. I never said I hold the one and only truth on anything. I’m not sure where you got that from. I however, have my opinions just like the liberals around me do. The difference, however, is that I am open to all ideas and want them all discussed. Again, the only professor who does this in the Poli Sci Dept is the conservative one (and the students - even the liberal ones - love him, but not necessarily his colleagues). Again to clarify, the only position I have which is largely confirmed is that liberal academia is mostly full of liberals not wanting to mention alternative viewpoints.</p>
<p>Tesll, I want to discuss a couple of the things you mentioned.</p>
<p>You state there are plenty of Poli Sci Departments that would be happy to hire someone who “turns out to be a conservative” but few that would hire one who “wears their ideological loyalty so open on their sleeve.” From my experience - and the experiences of others - this is largely false.</p>
<p>I remember I was going to visit the conservative professor the other day, and I was walked down the hall I came by a normal sighting: a giant Communist poster covering an entire door of a professor’s office. Ironically enough, that is the Department’s professor of Constitutional law. Interesting, conservatives can not even mention their opinions without you thinking they have an agenda but you seem to have no problem with this Communist shoving her opinions on others and waving it around.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that, generally, Departments do not want to have diversity of opinion. Their idea of diversity - if any - is having a Communist teach Constitutional Law and then having a Socialist teach American Foreign Policy. But, g-d forbid that we have a centrist teach Arab-Israeli Conflict or a libertarian teach Islamic Political Thought.</p>
<p>My question is not: “do elite liberal universities’ departments really want to shut out most other opinions?” I know the answer to that is that they obviously do. My question, however, is: “are there any prominent exceptions to this unfortunate trend?”</p>
Thank you for clarifying. Academia tends to give professors a lot of leeway in determining what is and is not taught in their classes, and practicality means that they cannot devote time to every single approach and perspective. I would suggest that you (a) continue to read and study independently to fill in any perceived holes in your education and that you (b) consider this when looking into graduate study - I doubt that the US is devoid of professors willing to discuss these approaches. Remember that you have only seen one department, and also that you do not need to agree with your professors to complete your PhD or even to get tenure.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I am not going to discuss with you your specific disagreements on the teaching of political science - this is not the right forum for that.</p>
<p>
The problems with using labels are first that they are subject to interpretation and second that they are almost always approximations. On the first part, I suspect that you and I center “conservative” at a different point in the political spectrum, so immediately we are going to start in different places when using or interpreting that word. On the second part, “conservative” covers almost half of the political spectrum, so if the details matter to you then it would behoove you to lead with those details, and not with the broad appellation.</p>
<p>And thank you for clarifying - that was not quite what I expected, although it was not tremendously far off.</p>
<p>
I think that the vast majority of academics are open to diverse viewpoints, but they have probably heard so many ardent but ignorant supporters of those viewpoints that they tend to disregard statements from those who standing fails to match up to the divergence of the viewpoint. You are a freshman, trying to convince professors who have been studying this for decades, that they are wrong and you are right. What you will discover is that the longer you are in the field, the more you do, the better prepared you are, the more receptive they will be to your viewpoints.</p>
<p>
I have two responses to this: </p>
<p>Fields evolve over time. Theories and ideas get tossed around over the course of decades and across hundreds of schools, and some ideas get gradually discarded while others are explored. Sometimes the discarded ideas get revived, but if you genuinely feel that the vast bulk of American academia has disregarded your ideas then I think that you really need to ask why. If you feel that something has been missed or not given due consideration, then I would think that you have an excellent path to a PhD and professorship ahead of you. If you think that they have considered all the arguments and simply found them wanting… then I do not know what to tell you.</p>
<p>Also, consider your goals in academia. What is it that you want to do, and what does it take to get it? You do not need to agree with your professors to pass a course, or write a thesis, or get a degree, or even to get tenure. You need to do the work that is placed before you, and do it well within the professional and academic guidelines given. I can lay out the pro and con arguments of a subject without necessarily agreeing with either one, and I do not think you need to do more than that to pass. If your goal is academia, remember that careful phrasing can get you a long way, and that the purpose of tenure is to allow you to put forth unpopular views without consequence.</p>
<p>
Just to jump on this, being “revered” by your PhD adviser is not what gets you tenure, especially when that adviser is at a different school than the one where you are seeking tenure! Gingrich was a hothead. His academic interests drifted during his time in academia, resulting in a change of departments. He stepped on a lot of toes by applying to be college president, then the department head, essentially trying to place himself above those with much more standing in the field. He was also absent frequently from his academic position while he campaigned for office - his first congressional campaign was while he was still seeking tenure, his second campaign was immediately after. I have friends who have gone through the tenure process and others who have been on the other side, awarding tenure, and I do not think that Gingrich, given his apparent ambitions and obvious personality conflicts with his college, could have gotten tenure if his political and personal beliefs had been in perfect lockstep with his department.</p>
<p>
That was my interpretation of your statements. You appear to be very set in your beliefs, and as dismissive of your professors’ viewpoints as you claim they are of your own. You seem very keen on talking, and not very keen on listening.</p>
<p>
That is fine, but there is a time and a place for those discussions. If you are trying to discuss something in a class that is not intended to cover that material, then you will justly have a hard time of it. Likewise, if you are trying to discuss something that is off of the “center” of current academic thinking then you need to understand that you need to introduce that discussion gradually - if you cannot convince a small group in private, then you cannot convince a large group in public, and if you can convince that small group then they will be able to help advance your viewpoint to the next level.</p>
<p>Also, while I am not sure of the relative validity of any of your particular viewpoints, I would not be surprised if academia is currently a little defensive towards self-professed conservatives espousing off-center ideas. The vocal and heated opposing viewpoints to AGW and evolution, for example, fly in the face of extensive academic research and are almost entirely coming from conservative quarters. I am not sure how much this extends into the social sciences and humanities, but it cannot help you to be identified politically and ideologically with people who think that academia is fundamentally wrong.</p>
<p>To be quite frank - you’re a freshman. I’m not saying that your experiences are not valid, but they are limited, in that you’ve presumably only been to one college and you know one set of professors. Furthermore, you’re looking at this from the perspective of a student looking into the faculty, rather than as a faculty member - or even a graduate student - who participates in the department in a far more intimate/connected way. Your views may change depending on your future experiences and departments.</p>
<p>I honestly think most universities are open to a diversity of thought within a certain range - that’s kind of the original, founding purpose of universities, and the entire point of tenure. I also think that you’ll find that most professors are moderate to liberal, to be quite honest - neither radical nor reactionary, although there will certainly be more radicals than extremely conservative/reactionary folk. I would say that as a freshman, your suspicions can’t really be confirmed - you basically have an N of 1. Whatever university you are currently at may feel very oppressive to you as a conservative scholar, but you haven’t been to all of the universities the U.S. You’re also brand-new and not faculty, so your experiences as a more established member of a faculty might be very different.</p>
<p>Also, it’s interesting that you say that no major elite institution would tolerate someone like the people you listed…since they are all actual academics at major elite institutions. Fukuyama is at Stanford; Lewis is at Princeton and Huntingdon was affiliated with both Harvard and Columbia. So clearly, prominent conservative scholars get jobs at elite universities, remain there at high levels, and produce well-received and popular scholarship. Sure, they’re older, but I bet there are plenty of less famous mid-career conservative scholars - particularly in economics and political science, which tend to be more conservative departments compared to, say, history or anthropology.</p>
<p>On a neutral level, what your political beliefs are don’t really matter. What matters is your science (or scholarship, in the case of history). Yes, your conservative political beliefs may influence the problems you choose to investigate. They will probably also influence the way in which you interpret the results you receive - just as my relatively liberal beliefs influence the problems I choose and the way I interpret the results. But if your science/scholarship is sound and your science/scholarship backs up what you have to say, you will face far less criticism from even the most liberal of scholars.</p>
<p>And lastly…I agree with you that conservative voices are somewhat repressed particularly in the social sciences. And as a liberal academic, I wish there was more exchange between liberal and conservative academics - I feel like pitting us against each other does more harm than good, and we need to work together to find solutions to our country’s and world’s problems that satisfy most people, rather than fighting and shutting down our government. Honestly, the more I communicate with conservative and moderate academics - the more I realize that our views are not so different and that there are many creative solutions and practical concerns coming from conservative scholars and pundits.</p>
<p>But the only way to do that, unfortunately, is to integrate yourself and other conservative young scholars into the academy. Go get your PhD, and mentor students who want to read Lewis and Fukuyama or other conservative-ish scholars and write their dissertations on these issues; co-sponsor debates and talks in your department and teach classes that present a diversity of voices and issues. And do good scholarship. That’s what will get you a job. And don’t roll up in the interview putting your political views front and center - that’s inappropriate regardless of what they are. I wouldn’t do that either, even knowing that most of the department will agree with me.</p>
<p>You can get a jump start on grad school right now. Go through your university’s library connection to get on to JSTOR and start searching for current papers in your field of interest. I guarantee you’ll find plenty that you politically agree with, as well as others that critically examine your preferred sources in ways you find incorrect. Start critically evaluating what they’re doing, as well as taking a very keen, critical eye to those who are writing in support of ideas you like. Those people will be your colleagues and competitors in the future. Find the holes in their arguments and work from there to push the field forward. Everyone’s advice here has been much less rude than mine would have been, so there’s no need to get adversarial with them. Start doing some serious research and getting to the edges of the field and you’ll be on the right path for graduate level work.</p>
I am mostly curious as to whose analyses you DO agree with!</p>
<p>
I am obviously not the one you asked, but after a certain point this really becomes something that you have to do yourself. If you want details on leading conservative scholars in political science, I suggest you post the question on a dedicated political science forum. This forum can give you feedback on the general topic of “holding positions counter or unfavorable to my advisor/department/field”, I doubt you can reasonably expect more here.</p>
<p>
That’s all right, I think it’s funny that this is what you think I said. I suspect you are referring to:</p>
<p>
And if that is the case, then you misunderstand. I was not speaking of a political center, I was referring to the core areas of academic research and the professional opinions regarding them. I was suggesting that when you believe that a certain unpopular theory is more correct than the theory or theories currently in academic favor that you have both opportunity and risk, and need to proceed accordingly.</p>
<p>I did note that academics tend to be gunshy of self-professed conservatives proposing such “off-center” theories, but that is a two-axis scenario, not one - a liberal or moderate can certainly propose theories that contrast wildly with the majority of academia, and a conservative can certainly defend theories that are right on that same center.</p>
<p>Besides, like any median, the political “center” can only defined after you specify the population. The median political beliefs in Kentucky (from what I have experienced) no more define the median US belief than do those of California, and Europe would consider almost ALL of us to be on right/far-right of the spectrum!</p>
<p>Cosmicfish, the reason that I asked Juillet the question I did was because the answer to my question is “there are none.” I would know, I’ve talked to academics about it. She said I should just assume there are rising conservative scholars in the field since there are older ones, even though I discussed the differences between the different generations of academics.</p>
<p>I’m going to highlight how conservative scholars are held to a much higher standard than liberal scholars.</p>
<p>The other day, I was talking with a professor about doing research. She expected students to come in and already know what their theses were, before doing any actual research. In other words, she believes in individuals finding sources to back up their opinions rather than first analyzing evidence to formulate an opinion.</p>
<p>I talked with my conservative buddy professor about this - and an old school liberal French historian I am cool with - about this situation. Dr. Conservative said “the short answer is that she is wrong from a general
academic perspective; however,she represents the ‘new school’ of thought coming out of post-modernist thought and the emerging trend of scholars today.”</p>
<p>This is just one example of many that I can point to, with myself and others. More so, I believe in analyzing sources then formulating an opinion. I did not think there was any actual debate about that. Nonetheless, whenever I talk to a professor about writing something, I am asked if I am being open-minded and have considered other alternatives. However, when my liberal friends (and yes, I am good friends with some liberals, no joke) no academic even questions their arguments.</p>
<p>How is this fair? Why is this even remotely tolerated? Stop and think for a minute how infuriated you would get after a while if every time you proposed an idea everyone around you called you “closed-minded” or “uneducated.” The short answer is that it is not fair, it is not acceptable, and it should not be even remotely sympathized with. Even if you would argue that liberal academics feel “hurt” by conservative opponents because of imbeciles like Rick Santorum and thus are naturally more cautious, you still must accept that these scholars are supposed to be professional adults who should hold the same standards of open-mindedness and defensible research for all, not just those they disagree with.</p>
To a certain extent, this is the scientific method: You ask a question, propose an answer, and then test and evaluate that answer to see if it is valid. Plus, the “analyzing evidence to formulate an opinion” is what you are supposed to be going to class and studying privately for, not where you should be starting active research. Some schools and fields and researchers grant you a year or two at the start to get this together, but not all do.</p>
<p>
There isn’t, but it is only part of the process. You analyze the sources that are out there briefly* formulate an opinion, but you need to choose a hypothesis in order to reach the depth that proving that opinion will require. This is why research is so variable in length - sometimes you do your “broad survey”, formulate a hypothesis, do more research in depth (hopefully including your own testing) … and sometimes find out that your hypothesis is wrong.</p>
<p>
They are not questioning their arguments because they have already done that work themselves and came to the same conclusion. In ANY field, if you step up to a researcher and say “I disagree with you” then they are going to want to dig deep and see where your disagreements start. If you say “I agree with you” then there is not generally any value in doing so.</p>
<p>
That is hard to answer, first because I was not able to get a great idea of the exact nature of your disagreements, second because I only have your side of those disagreements.</p>
<p>If I went to one of my engineering professors and said “I think this alternate theory is right and the theory you espouse is wrong” I would fully expect that they would immediately start asking me about (and referring me to) those scholarly works that support their position. I would respond by offering rebuttals of those works and otherwise trying to show that (a) I had considered them, (b) had some initial level of evidence that they were incorrect, and (c) had some path of future research that could reasonably prove my position.</p>
<p>So if I was walking around in my field (which is admittedly less “fuzzy”) espousing an idea that the bulk of my field had largely investigated and rejected, then I would fully expect the kind of response you are getting. Even if I am right, I would expect that.</p>
<p>
No one is perfect, you really need to embrace that fact. “open-mindedness” is a goal, not a destination. And don’t think that your preferred conservative professors lack such faults, you simply do not find yourself the subject of them.</p>
<p>**: In terms of years-long research, that is.*</p>
<p>Um, no, I did not. Please point to where in my comment I even said, much less insisted, that there were rising conservative scholars in the field. I didn’t say anything like that. The closest thing I said to that was</p>
<p>Also, it’s interesting that you say that no major elite institution would tolerate someone like the people you listed…since they are all actual academics at major elite institutions…So clearly, prominent conservative scholars get jobs at elite universities…I bet there are plenty of less famous mid-career conservative scholars - particularly in economics and political science, which tend to be more conservative departments compared to, say, history or anthropology.</p>
<p>First of all, I said “I bet,” which gives no indication to how you should feel. That is my own assumption, which you are free to disagree with. And secondly, I explicitly referred to mid-career folks. I was referring to people who might be willing to mentor you and shepherd you through your PhD if you choose to focus on more conservative issues. I didn’t insist anything, and I actually said</p>
<p>And lastly…I agree with you that conservative voices are somewhat repressed particularly in the social sciences.</p>
<p>I actually do know of young and mid-career conservative scholars in my field…but as a young scholar in your own field, it’s your job to find them.</p>
<p>So here’s the deal.</p>
<p>First of all, by your own admission, you are a freshman in college. I’m not saying this to be snarky or mean, but you have very limited experience in the world of academia. It’s just the fact of life - so do I, even as an advanced graduate student. I’m taking a risk in assuming that you’re probably around 18 years old and have probably attended one university so far. If those assumptions are true, you are unable to really confirm suspicions about academia at this point. As I pointed out in my original post, you definitely don’t have the experience of being a professor on faculty.</p>
<p>For example, your experience you recounted. First of all, I am willing to bet that this is a misunderstanding of the professor’s mission. When my students write papers, I also expect them to have some kind of argument or thesis before they go to find sources. That’s how science works. Researchers formulate hypotheses, and then they go to find things that back up or disprove those hypotheses. In the sciences we do it by collecting data (whether about the natural world or about people); in the humanities, you form some hypothesis about themes and concepts in your field and search the archives for sources. When we write grants, you write aims and hypotheses, because the granting agency wants us to have some reason why they are giving us millions of dollars and some evidence that the relationship we think exists, exists. This is how science/scholarship works. You don’t just go digging in the library with no direction, no thoughts about the way your research might. In fact, it’s the unexamined hypotheses that are the most dangerous, the ones you are unwilling to admit. Scientists and scholars put their hypotheses out there to be tested.</p>
<p>Which is where the idea of scientific skepticism comes in - to be a good scientist/scholar, you need to admit that your hypothesis/argument might be wrong and hold it to the most rigorous testing to give support for it. In my field, I WANT my methods to be the most rigorous, to have the greatest chance of proving me wrong, because if my results indicate a relationship that means that it must be really real. People in the quantitative social sciences actually stack the deck against themselves, statistically, when it comes to supporting evidence. This isn’t limited to liberal scholars. I’ve read work from conservative scholars (primarily at conservative think tanks) who take the same approach.</p>
<p>Secondly, you didn’t actually show that conservative scholars are held to a higher standard. You highlighted one liberal scholar who has a possibly erroneous view of the way scholarship should be done in the field, but you didn’t show evidence that she’s actually harmed any conservative scholars by holding that view. Nor did the conservative scholar herself confirm that she, in fact, has been harmed by erroneous post-modernist views of scholarship in your field.</p>
<p>My point, though, is this is literally an N of one. This is a bad experience with one liberal professor at one university at a very early, formative experience in your career. This doesn’t prove your point about liberal professors in general.</p>
<p>Further, though, I don’t necessarily disagree with your assumption wrt conservative scholars in academia being held to higher standard. - if you read my post again, specifically the last paragraph, you’ll see that I actually agreed with you. Liberal voices do outweigh conservative voices in academia. As a liberal academic in virtually any field, you’re going to be outnumbered. Some of your liberal colleagues may scorn your beliefs and your writings, and you may have a burden of proof that’s much heavier than the fuzzy post-modernist scholars or even liberal scholars with shoddy methods. You’ll be held to a higher standard of proof.</p>
<p>Life is unfair. “Stop and think for a minute how infuriated you would get after a while if every time you proposed an idea everyone around you called you…‘uneducated.’” happens to me in my every day life, too, for different reasons, of course. I’m called a bunch of other things, too, like “angry” or “ghetto” or hypersexual. I’m assumed inferior and stupid. I watch people make fun of and denigrate my culture. And if I point it out, I’m told that I’m making it up, that I need to relax, that I’m too sensitive. Millions of Americans face these kinds of experiences every day, and many of them within academia as well.</p>
<p>The question is, what are you going to do about it? Yes, it’s unfair that conservative scholars are repressed in academia (and I don’t deny that they are). And yes, more conservative voices need to be heard and flourish in academia, assuming that they are doing good science. But at risk of sounding…messed up…what are you going to do about it? If you want more voices like your own in academia, you can be that voice. But you have to get through to the other end; you can’t let perceived discrimination and a lack of open-mindedness stop you. If you’re being held to a higher standard, point it out, while meeting the higher standard. It’s really unfortunate, but people in the minority have to hold the line and play the game until we get into positions of power, and then we can change things. It is, by definition, going to be rougher for you.</p>
<p>I guess the tl;dr version is that if you really want to be an academic, you’re going to have to truck through all the bs to get to the promised land - and probably more bs than your liberal peers. It’s unfair, and yet a fact of life. Only you can decide if that’s what you want.</p>