According to a new survey, roughly 40 percent of college faculty would “oppose hiring a Trump supporter.” The results of the study are not surprising to many in the field of teaching. Indeed, it may be low given faculty reluctance to admit political bias or the delusion of others that they are without it. Yet, the virtual purging of Republicans from most departments reveals a long-standing ideological exclusion in higher education. While far-left hires are common, even a moderate Republican is a rarity on faculties in a country with a majority of conservative and libertarian voters.
Even assuming that many faculty members will not expressly acknowledge their bias, this forty percent is willing to state that they will vote against candidates based on their political views without any consideration of the intellectual content of their scholarship.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss these arguments to justify the current levels of intolerance and orthodoxy in higher education.
I had dinner with another Harvard Law Professor, who expressed disbelief that I expected him to vote for any faculty applicants who held views he considered wrong. When I noted that I regularly vote for faculty candidates who hold opposing views, he just shrugged and said that, if he rejects their views, he cannot vote for those views to be taught to students.
There are few remaining conservatives or libertarians on law school faculties, which have been purged of dissenting voices through a biased hiring and promotion system. Despite years of complaints and declining public trust in higher education, faculty members continue to reinforce bias and orthodoxy in our schools.
I wrote about the rise of this new McCarthyism on the left seven years ago.
Recently, I discussed the example of Fordham University School of Law professor John Pfaff, who called for “repercussions” for professors who do not “recant” their view that the 14th Amendment does not protect birthright citizenship.
Tolerance is intolerable for professors like Pfaff. After the decision in Trump v. Barbara, Professor Pfaff went on BlueSky to vent against anyone who dared to voice a dissenting view in academia, calling such faculty “parasites” that have to be effectively stomped out of higher education. In his post, Pfaff declared:
“There MUST be repercussions for the lawprofs who advanced such untenable arguments. Their behavior is — and I mean this literally, not dehumanizingly — parasitic.
They exploit norms of collegiality and presumptions of integrity to advance trash. Which undermines the work of ALL of us.”
His rationale for punishing opposing viewpoints is an insight into the arguments used against intellectual diversity and institutional neutrality in higher education.
I recently participated in a debate with the President of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), who opposed the principles of institutional neutrality.
Some sites, such as Above the Law, have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty. Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.
Not long ago, I debated Professor Randall Kennedy at Harvard Law School about the lack of ideological diversity at the school. I respect Kennedy, and I do not view him as anti-free speech or intolerant. Yet when I noted the statistics on the vanishing number of conservative students and faculty in comparison to the nation, Kennedy responded that Harvard “is an elite university” and does not have to “look like America.”
Of course, the problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican.
At Yale, the faculty achieved a type of academic nirvana in reaching a point where not a single faculty member gave to a Republican candidate.
When pressed, faculty members often claim that they cannot find credible or competent conservatives. During my debate with Professor Kennedy, I noted that, if a university made such a claim to explain the virtual absence of minority professors, a judge would laugh them out of court. The virtual absence of conservative or Republican faculty in most departments shows a deep and unrelenting bias.
There is little self-reflection on the left in considering the historical or cultural implications of such bias. While often alluding to the McCarthy period in criticizing the right, professors rarely acknowledge their own effective black list against conservatives and certain Trump supporters. Few conservative applicants today would risk admitting to being Trump supporters in interviews.
The intolerance in higher education will not change because it is a cultural touchstone for faculty. Professors prove their bona fides with intolerant statements in meetings and even in classes. I heard from closet conservative students at Harvard how faculty routinely used their classes to rail against Trump and Republicans. They sit like a silent captive audience.
Surveys show that this intolerance has produced widespread self-censuring by students, particularly conservative students.
Some 49 percent of Republican students report self-censoring on three or more topics. Independents are the second most likely at 40 percent. Some 38 percent of Democrats admit to self-censoring.
Sixty percent of college students strongly or somewhat agree that “[t]he climate at my school or on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe, because others might find it offensive.”
That is the environment of intolerance created and maintained by this generation of administrators and faculty. It will not change until donors stop giving money to schools without greater balance and intellectual diversity.
Is anyone really surprised?
These people are not the intellectuals they claim to be. Actual intellectuals are open minded, seek debate, challenge views or are willing to have their own views challenged.
These people are the exact opposite of that. By their own words and actions we see how they attempt to silence others with differing views.
More of the famous leftist tolerance we keep hearing about.
antonio
If the American public, especially that part of it that has children soon to graduate high school, follows actual economic incentives as they should, this problem ought to be largely self-rectifying. As rotten to the core as most institutions of higher education have become, they are not completely divorced from economic reality. Slash (better yet, eliminate) Federal subsidies and reduce enrollment by ~50%, and I can pretty much guarantee that the boards of trustees of affected universities will be looking to axe expensive professors, and they will be focusing on the vociferous examples who (in their opinions) caused the problem. Yes, the Singham and Soros globalist networks could take up some of that slack, but how much and for how long? Even those organizations have financial limitations. Want to return the US to prosperity? Get the government out of the way and allow the free market to function.
Trump voters are anti-intellectual, fascist, racist, xenophobic, and impervious to the concept of objective facts. Of course you would never hire one.
“. . . roughly 40 percent of college faculty would ‘oppose hiring a Trump supporter.’”
Notice the trajectory in academia —
Then: We don’t discriminate against conservative academics.
Now: Okay, we do. But our discrimination is righteous — because flat earthers.
The Leftist pattern is always the same (see also Fauci and Covid): Deny, deny, deny. Then rationalize doing (what you denied doing) by smearing the victims.
Um… you got something there, sounds exactly like the Trump tactic.
More Lefty pattern data. Birx needs to fry along with Fauci
https://www.westernjournal.com/knoxville-mayor-shares-chilling-2020-talk-deborah-birx-admitted-truth-didnt-matter-came-science/
Well you have to remove the hiring decisions from the faculty. If the Board of a University, private or public, wants to change this status, then they will have to do it. That will be unpleasant to do. The Board will be removed from the day to day activities of a department and that can be all important in hiring and retaining someone with a different political view. But they will have to do it because my experience in working in depts and boards is that they will not change without a shove or some disaster that mandates change.
There is a risk to doing it by the board because your new hire will get all sorts of criticism and more and from a distant view you will have to decide if the criticism and disharmony is due to the new hire or just the entrenched faculty carrying on the fight even after you elected to hire the new person. It can be difficult to walk thru such a field and make the right decision. The bypassed faculty will not give up for quite a long time and they are happy to toss in land mines.
Just imagine being a black high school student in 1960’s Atlanta going to an all white high school that has never had a black student. It would likely be similar. I was there to watch in the 1960’s and observe some incredible self control by those students and at Board meeting in the 1980’s thru 2010’s when we made unpopular decisions.
Not fun to be the first student or hire in those situations and not fun to be on the Board but sometimes you just have to do it.
Frankly some of the faculty on these campuses act more like KKK members did in the 1960’s and their language is not any better either. You would expect them to be more erudite in their intolerance.
“Well you have to remove the hiring decisions from the faculty.”
So educational institutions completely dominated by leftists are simply going to change their hiring policies to accommodate conservatives?
You embarrass yourself every time you comment.
“You embarrass yourself every time you comment.”
We survived McCarthy. God willing we’ll survive the leftist MSM, academia, and politicians. What an irony.
And what followed after his demise?
So you think leftism is just going to disappear? Whew!
100% of Trump voters would refuse to work for a communist, liberal, insane, ivory tower university professor.
Now that’s what is called an ignorant and stupid comemnt.
“Now that’s what is called an ignorant and stupid comment.”
Refuse to work with… Assuming they could get a job at a university.
Post-secondary institutions that receive government funding (including financial aid) should not be permitted to violate the 1st Amendment in admissions, hiring, or promotions.
Should not? Not much to argue there, but in reality it does and ain’t no one gonna change that.
These are the same people who either justified the mistreatment of anyone stating facts about the Chinavirus, or refused to take the ineffective vaccine, or at best looked the other way. They are Fascists through and through, just like their Nazi forebears.
A pretty stupid comment considering fascism took hold in Italy ca. 1920. And you call yourself an anti-fascist?
What an absolutely stupid comment.
“What an absolutely stupid comment.”
“Harvard ‘is an elite university’ and does not have to ‘look like America.'” Really? That reminds me of the big 60 birthday party that Barak Obama (Harvard grad) threw for himself during COVID. At the big 60 party, the servants had to wear face masks, but Barak Obama and his family and friends didn’t have to … they explained that they are healthy elites.
So what?
Academics often behave this way for several distinct reasons. First and foremost, they are drawn to comprehensive theories that promise universal answers, appear theoretically egalitarian, and possess enough intellectual complexity to hold their appeal. Marxism fit that mold, regardless of the fact that their tenure system itself is far from fair. They have now become downright unfair to conservatives.
Historically, this ideological affinity was reinforced when the early Soviets seduced visiting Western intellectuals, such as George Bernard Shaw, with carefully staged, Potemkin-village tours, much like how modern authoritarian regimes continue to court sympathetic Western figures. These intellectuals returned home as vocal supporters of Marxism. (Note China’s recent seduction of a visiting DSA contingent.)
Later, Senator Joseph McCarthy’s aggressive anti-communist investigations deeply alienated higher education, helping to cement a lasting academic disdain for the Republican Party. Finally, the rise of Donald Trump, who routinely withholds the deference and status academics feel they deserve, further solidified this opposition.
What a heap of nonseasonal.
nonseasonal? LOL!
How does a school even know what your politics are to began with? Politics shouldn’t be a issued and should be kept private
Political donations can be tracked easily. Politics should be private? Seriously? Not sure how one can do that when in some places voter roles are public and find out what their preference is. And then there social media…. the end all be all of stupidity.
Much of Primary voting is public knowledge, did a person vote in the Democratic or Republican primary? The information about which party’s primary a voter participated in is public. Did you know that?
Public access to primary voting information varies by state, with some states allowing broad access to voter registration details, including names, addresses, and party affiliations, while others impose restrictions to protect voter privacy. Each state has its own laws governing what information is public and who can access it.
People wear politics on their hats and shirts all the time. People put yard signs in their yards. People have political bumper stickers. I just saw a car with ‘Hillary Clinton for President” on it.
“I just saw a car with ‘Hillary Clinton for President” on it.” At 6:42 in the morning?
Trump voters are not hard to identify. Their hatred comes out quickly.
That’s because those who can…. Do….and those who can’t…… Teach. Consequently, whatever claims to excellence in their academic ivory Towers, that lot are pack of underachievers, and these are the hands into which we put the youth of our nation.
What an absolutely stupid comment. Surely you have proof… studies, analyses etc. for that ignorant opinion?
. Surely you have proof… studies, analyses etc. for that ignorant opinion?………..Clearly, if they were capable of doing anything else, they’d be out in the real world achieving rather than snuggling in the bosom and security of alma mater. Academia is sought because it is safe haven. The differences between what the part-time and full time faculties in the disciplines I taught brought to the table in that regard were clear. There are some endeavors wherein one has to be out there doing it, in order to teach it and be current. The research laboratory or the library is not necessarily that place.
“What an absolutely stupid comment. Surely you have proof… studies, analyses etc. for that ignorant opinion?”