I think David presents a good case and pretty convincing case other than a few minor quibbles.
The first thing I should point out is that I do think more ideological balance would be better. That isn’t clear on earlier postings and I think that is an important point. I agree with David that I don’t think most professors are that concerned with ideology, but that he is absolutely correct in stating some specific fields are probably more concerned than others. His example of women’s studies and African-American studies are very good. I’d say their uniformity varies by department and probably by department chair. Gerald Early, for example, (formerly Af-Am Studies Chair at Washington University in St. Louis) probably isn’t concerned with ideology, but with work. Whether he is representative is a good question, and I’d have to say probably not.
David’s point that some may use ideology is a good point and one that is probably not clear to me not having to think about it. While I would argue that most don’t care, even a small number of faculty or events can make being hired difficult or discourage one from trying the academic market. I haven’t seen it personally, but given the pettiness of many academics, I shouldn’t discount it occurring. Even more important is the realization that small numbers of cases might be discouraging.
Of course, the most damning thing I know of at a dinner with a candidate was when the candidate wouldn’t eat a roast beef sandwich after several suggestions. Strange place academia. Academics are known for all sorts of no-nos during the hiring process. One of the more amazing for a ‘liberal profession’ is the habit of asking about family status. In some departments, chairs have to send out yearly reminders about what is and is not acceptable.
On socialization, I do disagree with David a bit. While I agree most come in with distinct views, I have seen several friends who were at least to the right of the average social scientist become more liberal over time. The reason seems to be from having constant discussions on politics with people who were more liberal. I wouldn’t call this a majority or even a large number, but examples of why not only is their a majority of liberals, but a supermajority. I don’t have any way to quantify that, but it is a hunch I have.
Lott is a good example of the problem. I think there are some serious problems with Lott’s work (most of them voiced by Gary Kleck), but that is true of many professors out there . IOW, there wouldn’t be many professors at all using that standard.
The problem is I don’t know how solve that imbalance and neither does anyone else from what I have read. An ideological affirmative action is unlikely to work because the problem is very similar to getting minorities into disciplines–there simply isn’t the supply available even if they are sought out. Trying to get 12% African-American profs would damn near be impossible because 12% of the PhDs aren’t African-Americans. The number of conservatives with PhDs is also below the background population of conservatives. Perhaps a mentoring process would be in order, but much like with African-Americans, such efforts haven’t worked well because an institution who does the initial mentoring, doesn’t receive the benefit since individuals move on to other universities.
The first step, I suppose, would be to make academia a nicer place.
Okay, stop laughing.
This is at the core of the problem. Academia needs to be a place of vigorous disagreement over ideas. Naturally, this leads to the issues David points out below because when people disagree and a particular view is underrepresented, those with those views are likely to exit the institution creating even further unbalance. Being nicer to conservatives is a nice statement, but in a place that can be quite competitive, I’m not sure how realistic this is. IOW, yeah, ideological imbalance is a problem, but I don’t know of any way to correct it.
Any ideas out there?
ArchPundit