What If Conservatives Dominated Higher Education?

Rethinking Academia: A Progressive Lens on Conservative Perspectives in Higher Education

In the vast landscape of higher education, a significant portion of academics often dismiss conservative critiques as mere political posturing.

However, to truly grasp the complexities of contemporary academia, it's crucial to consider the prevailing environment from the viewpoint of the conservative minority.

Imagine, for a moment, a hypothetical scenario where conservative ideologies shaped every facet of academic life.

This thought experiment offers a powerful lens through which to examine the current state of affairs and foster a more inclusive and intellectually vibrant educational ecosystem.

The Hypothetical Conservative Academy: Unveiling Potential Biases

Let's envision a world where university presidents, provosts, deans, department chairs, and center directors are predominantly conservative.

Picture scholarly journal editors, manuscript reviewers, and grant proposal evaluators all adhering to conservative principles.

Imagine faculty senates, award committees, and tenure review boards largely comprised of conservatives.

In such a counterfactual setting, faculty members who identify with progressive viewpoints would undoubtedly identify numerous instances where politics and ideology influenced academic endeavors.

They would likely argue that even without overt intent, a conservative majority could subtly skew outcomes.

This perspective draws parallels to long-standing progressive arguments about how discrimination can manifest through unconscious biases and embedded institutional structures, even when not deliberately enacted.

Progressives would contend that a conservative majority might inadvertently favor certain outcomes, even if those in power genuinely believed they were acting with fairness and adhering to professional norms.

From a conservative standpoint, decisions regarding faculty hiring, tenure, publication approvals, and grant applications might appear to be based solely on merit.

Yet, the progressive minority would likely remain skeptical, especially if their lived experiences suggested that academia increasingly mirrored conservative priorities.

Contemplating this hypothetical scenario encourages the current progressive majority in academia to seriously consider the concerns of contemporary conservatives, who, by many metrics, represent a minority across various academic dimensions, from faculty ranks to administrative leadership.

Understanding Majority and Minority Dynamics in Academia

While the progressive predominance in higher education is widely acknowledged, statistical data offers compelling insights.

For instance, a recent survey of faculty indicated a significant lean towards liberal or far-left identification, with a much smaller percentage identifying as conservative.

This contrasts with earlier surveys, suggesting a notable shift over time.

Further research, including analyses of political contributions by faculty, reveals a stark imbalance in financial and partisan affiliations, heavily favoring Democratic candidates and committees.

Scholars have extensively explored the implications of majority and minority status within political and societal frameworks, highlighting how minority groups can face disadvantages, even when the majority does not intentionally act to their detriment.

Concepts like unconscious or implicit bias have emerged from academic discourse to explain how discrimination can occur without conscious awareness.

Implicit bias, as defined by psychological associations, refers to unconscious negative attitudes towards specific social groups.

Similarly, critical race theory posits that racism can become ingrained in institutional practices, leading to "racism without racists." While these concepts remain subjects of debate, they have undeniably gained traction within academic circles.

Progressive scholars and activists often employ arguments based on disparate impact, where group differences in outcomes are interpreted as strong evidence of discrimination, potentially justifying interventions.

This approach has influenced policy decisions, such as guidance issued to school districts regarding disciplinary policies based on observed racial disparities.

In essence, progressive faculty within a predominantly conservative academic environment would possess a conceptual toolkit to question the fairness of the status quo.

However, the current progressive majority in academia faces no inherent incentive to apply these frameworks to a system where they demonstrably hold a dominant position.

The idea that a progressive academic world feels as natural as water to fish is a common sentiment.

Yet, if individuals naturally gravitate towards those who share their perspectives, values, and methodologies, then groupthink can significantly influence which scholarship is deemed valuable, funded, published, and rewarded.

For like-minded decision-makers, it may seem entirely natural for a progressive hiring committee to select a progressive candidate, for progressive peer reviewers to recommend a book aligned with progressive interests, or for grant reviewers to find merit in research addressing progressive priorities.

They might genuinely believe that rejected proposals or manuscripts simply failed to meet objective criteria.

However, as the renowned physicist Richard Feynman wisely cautioned, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool."

The Subtle Deficits of Ideological Homogeneity

A more subtle, yet significant, challenge arising from the promotion of progressive ideas within contemporary universities is the potential for growing deficits and absences in both teaching and research.

Absences are inherently more difficult to detect than presences.

While it's evident that higher education is replete with centers and programs focused on progressive priorities, a more profound issue may be the disappearance of knowledge from academia because it is considered outmoded, politically incorrect, or fails to align with a particular critical perspective.

This challenge is particularly pronounced in the humanities and social sciences, but it warrants consideration across all academic disciplines.

Academic Freedom: A Right to Learn for All Students

Many progressive faculty might perceive discussions about ideological balance as politically motivated attempts to infringe upon their academic freedom.

However, it is crucial to remember that students possess a fundamental right to learn.

The American Association of University Professors' foundational principles on academic freedom emphasize its role in protecting both teachers and students.

Academic freedom, in its teaching aspect, is essential for safeguarding the teacher's right to teach and the student's freedom to learn.

This freedom carries correlative duties.

Properly understood, students' freedom to learn necessitates encountering the full spectrum of ideas within a scholarly discipline.

Consequently, a university that exclusively embraces one set of ideological viewpoints is deficient in its educational mission.

While not all ideas are inherently political or ideological, it is undeniable that conservative thought is more susceptible to being overlooked, misunderstood, or even misrepresented within the contemporary academic landscape.

Navigating the Academic Ocean Liner: Towards Intellectual Diversity

Academia is unlikely to spontaneously embrace greater intellectual diversity.

Majorities rarely relinquish power without external pressure or incentives, and there is no reason to assume the current progressive majority will be an exception.

The task of fostering such diversity is also immense, as a comprehensive plan to address the challenges posed by progressive dominance across all academic spheres—from peer review to teaching to grant funding—cannot be achieved overnight.

The most logical starting point is the faculty, who form the bedrock of academia.

Given the decentralized nature of most universities, particularly large ones, hiring decisions are predominantly made at the departmental level.

University leadership, such as presidents and deans, cannot easily oversee every personnel decision without dedicating significant attention and resources to each individual hire.

This process is time-consuming, necessitates overcoming information asymmetries, and can inevitably lead to friction.

Nevertheless, faculty hiring remains the critical juncture where reforms in higher education must commence.

Beyond Quotas: Recalibrating University Purpose

A direct, yet potentially problematic and counterproductive, approach would be to implement a system of quotas or affirmative action for conservatives.

Such a policy would likely face strong opposition from progressives, despite their long-standing arguments for affirmative action in promoting racial and gender diversity.

Moreover, conservatives have historically opposed affirmative action based on race and gender, making a sudden advocacy for such policies appear opportunistic and inconsistent.

Is there a viable alternative that avoids the pitfalls of self-perpetuating hiring by progressives and the complexities of affirmative action for conservatives?

A more constructive strategy involves trustees, elected officials, and stakeholders recalibrating the university's core mission to ensure that its teaching and research encompass the full breadth of ideas and human experiences.

This approach is more demanding than quotas, as it requires leaders to possess a deep understanding of the academic content being studied and taught across departments and centers.

However, it can be executed in a scholarly, deliberate, and non-ideological manner through regular assessments led by university presidents and provosts, evaluating faculty teaching, publications, service activities, and engagement with the broader world.

This method, grounded in the fundamental functions of universities, bypasses reliance on indirect measures like faculty ideology and partisanship.

Instead, it focuses on the tangible outputs of teaching, research, and service, enabling each institution to identify specific deficits and imbalances.

Implementing this approach would also yield valuable data on the actual dynamics within campuses.

While public discourse often paints the academy with broad strokes, biases can vary significantly from one university to another and from one discipline to another.

These biases may prove larger or smaller than commonly perceived, but given the overall ideological leanings of faculty, it is unlikely that they consistently favor a conservative direction.

Any identified issues could then be addressed through future hiring, guided by central leadership.

This strategy would naturally lead to an increase in conservative and libertarian scholars on campus, as they often gravitate towards topics that have been marginalized, particularly in the humanities and social sciences.

However, this would be a byproduct of the overarching effort to cultivate genuine intellectual vitality.

This strategy need not operate in isolation.

In certain instances, it could be complemented by reorganizations of academic centers and departments, or even their consolidation.

Universities that mandate implicit bias training for those involved in faculty hiring should ensure that the curriculum explicitly addresses biases based on ideological viewpoints.

Furthermore, all institutions should consider establishing civics institutes, similar to those pioneered in several states.

While these initiatives have largely originated in "red states," university leaders in both Democratic states and private institutions are beginning to recognize their educational and civic potential, as well as their utility in navigating political scrutiny.

Cultivating an Intellectually Diverse Faculty: A Path Forward

Renewed attention to the fundamental work of higher education can help address the significant challenges faced by aspiring conservative scholars.

As noted by a prominent academic, outstanding students with conservative leanings often encounter formidable obstacles.

They may face rejection from top graduate programs, pressure to conform, or outright discrimination if admitted.

The path to securing a tenure-track position is fraught with intense competition and potential biases.

Even upon obtaining a position, the journey towards tenure can involve even greater scrutiny and potential discrimination, especially as scholars approach the critical mid-career stage.

This reality raises serious questions for advisors considering whether to recommend such a path to students.

While no profession can perfectly mirror the ideological and partisan diversity of the broader American population, it is certainly possible for conservatives and libertarians to expand their presence on campus and gradually reduce their minority status over time.

As these scholars achieve a critical mass, they will naturally become more active and influential participants in various aspects of the scholarly ecosystem.

This endeavor requires time, focused attention, and dedicated resources, but it holds the promise of creating meaningful and sustainable change.

While some may argue that this approach invites politics into the academy, it would, in fact, enable higher education to more authentically uphold its core values.

Faculty research would more comprehensively explore the full spectrum of scholarly topics and questions, and faculty teaching would better equip students for the diverse marketplace of ideas they will encounter in the real world.