|When I started college in 1951 everyone
considered a liberal education an absolute must for a well rounded
understanding of our civilization. I misunderstood the meaning of that
ideal and thought for a long time it meant including a healthy dose of the
liberal arts in a scientific education. Only after a lifetime of seeing
the benefits of making judgments based on the best available evidence,
demanding extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims and relentlessly
questioning authority do I more fully understand the value of a liberal
education. It is an education that takes nothing for granted and teaches
us to be rational. Naturally, those with their own understanding of
reality based on "revealed truths" are reluctant to encourage open enquiry
in any subject which challenges the preconceived notions of truth and
right. Those who remain unaware of the myriad bodies of "truth" existing
in diverse cultures and religious traditions around the world may find it
easy to accept their own set of beliefs as exclusive and infallible, but
even the most casual exposure to the rich traditions present in other
cultures makes that mistake impossible.
Today the liberal education is under attack by the political ultra-conservatives and the Christian fundamentalists in this country. In America we condemn the limitations on intellectual freedom imposed by radical Islamic fundamentalists in most of the Muslim countries. We rightly abhor "brain washing." But, where are people taught to weigh evidence and sift fact from fiction before making judgments effecting the lives of many? Where do they learn to be open minded? While there may be justifiable reasons to limit the widespread dissemination of politically incorrect research findings (e.g. people are genetically predisposed to be smart, dumb, homosexual, brutish, criminal, etc.), humanity must support the studies which reveal these unpleasant realities. That means defending academic freedom and passing on to new generations of university students the intellectual tools they will need to preserve this tradition for future generations. If we learned nothing else from the history of the Dark Ages, it is that knowledge cannot be circumscribed by religious or political dogma. No matter how disturbing was the knowledge that the earth is shaped like a big ball, if it ain't flat, it just ain't flat any more!
April 5, 2005
An Academic Question
It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities. But what should we conclude from that?
Conservatives see it as compelling evidence of liberal bias in university hiring and promotion. And they say that new "academic freedom" laws will simply mitigate the effects of that bias, promoting a diversity of views. But a closer look both at the universities and at the motives of those who would police them suggests a quite different story.
Claims that liberal bias keeps conservatives off college faculties almost always focus on the humanities and social sciences, where judgments about what constitutes good scholarship can seem subjective to an outsider. But studies that find registered Republicans in the minority at elite universities show that Republicans are almost as rare in hard sciences like physics and in engineering departments as in softer fields. Why?
One answer is self-selection - the same sort of self-selection that leads Republicans to outnumber Democrats four to one in the military. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to the private sector is likely to be somewhat more liberal than average, even in engineering.
But there's also, crucially, a values issue. In the 1970's, even Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan conceded that the Republican Party was the "party of ideas." Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it has become the "party of theocracy."
Consider the statements of Dennis Baxley, a Florida legislator who has sponsored a bill that - like similar bills introduced in almost a dozen states - would give students who think that their conservative views aren't respected the right to sue their professors. Mr. Baxley says that he is taking on "leftists" struggling against "mainstream society," professors who act as "dictators" and turn the classroom into a "totalitarian niche." His prime example of academic totalitarianism? When professors say that evolution is a fact.
In its April Fools' Day issue, Scientific American published a spoof editorial in which it apologized for endorsing the theory of evolution just because it's "the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time," saying that "as editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence." And it conceded that it had succumbed "to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do."
The editorial was titled "O.K., We Give Up." But it could just as well have been called "Why So Few Scientists Are Republicans These Days." Thirty years ago, attacks on science came mostly from the left; these days, they come overwhelmingly from the right, and have the backing of leading Republicans.
Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax." And conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton's anti-environmentalist fantasies.
Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.
Conservatives should be worried by the alienation of the universities; they should at least wonder if some of the fault lies not in the professors, but in themselves. Instead, they're seeking a Lysenkoist solution that would have politics determine courses' content.
And it wouldn't just be a matter of demanding that historians play down the role of slavery in early America, or that economists give the macroeconomic theories of Friedrich Hayek as much respect as those of John Maynard Keynes. Soon, biology professors who don't give creationism equal time with evolution and geology professors who dismiss the view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old might face lawsuits.
If it got that far, universities would probably find ways to cope - by, say, requiring that all entering students sign waivers. But political pressure will nonetheless have a chilling effect on scholarship. And that, of course, is its purpose.
|Letting Go Of God||Finally, for your entertainment
treat yourself to Julia Sweeney's humorous, yet thought provoking
examination of her religious odyssey (audio file now gone, but read a
Julia Sweeney’s shtick). [Thanks Ian]