For Merit, Not Biological or Ideological Diversity in Hiring

by Liberty and Power

Steve Horwitz and others here weighed into the controversy on leftist domination of academe.

Much of the debate was prompted by Dan Klein's and Charlotta Stern's recent study which found that leftists predominate, often overwhelmingly, in most fields, especially in the social sciences and the humanities.

In response to evidence of this type, some conservatives, most notably David Horowitz, have called for universities to expand the existing use of race and sex (biological diversity) as factors in hiring to include ideological diversity.

While I think that Horowitz makes a stronger case than many of his critics are willing to concede, I have never been sympathetic to the approach he recommends.

Increasingly forgotten by both sides is another, and, in my view the best, standard for hiring: merit, without apologies or compromise.

I plan to say much more on this but let me start with a couple of questions for professors who support the inclusion of biology or ideology (or both) as part of the hiring process.

Do they use race or gender as factors in grading or do they use, or attempt to use, merit, pure and simple? If they do not believe in using biology or ideology as factors for grading, but do for hiring, on what basis do they justify the one but not the other?

Both of these questions were prompted by comments over at Cliopatria by Jonathan Dresner on a blog by Ralph Luker.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

David T. Beito - 12/16/2004

Agreed.

Jonathan Dresner - 12/14/2004

"probably"

In fields where political views are irrelevant, I can see how that might be the case. In fields where political views are relevant, how is it surprising that faculty "discriminate" against ideas and theories they believe to be wrong? You wouldn't hire a creationist in the Physics department (or biology, for that matter), or a flat-earther in geology or geography (or history). More subtly, there are intra-disciplinary subfields and theories that bear directly on hiring decisions ("Oh, not a New Historicist"; "how is a migratory study going to work here?"; "our students are very interested in India; could you teach a course even though your field is Africa?", ad nauseum).

KC Johnson has proposed the idea of "methodological" diversity within History departments, and it's a good concept, but like you, he can only speculate about the ideological results.

Jonathan Dresner - 12/14/2004

But what is the value of diversity within the University if students are not actually exposed to it? How does it help to increase the number of ideological libertarians and social conservatives if students never learn from them the joys of non-leftist thought? Or, what if students start taking all their classes from those faculty, never getting exposed to thoughtful non-rightist thought?

Is diversity an end in itself? Or is it a means to an end? And if it is a means to an end, is it a sufficient means?

Jonathan Dresner - 12/14/2004

I don't do those things, myself, so I'm still waiting for some sense of what I can do.

David T. Beito - 12/14/2004

I third Aeon and Steven's comments. I would also oppose opposing all any such quasi quota requirement or ideological litmus test. I disgree with most of Horowitz's solutions. Having said that, I think if that academics adopted a more consistent attitude of fairness, openness, and most of all humility in their relations with people who represent competing points of view, the end result would probably be greater ideological diversity in academe.

Steven Horwitz - 12/14/2004

I second Aeon here. I would add a different version of his a) - a2) assuming that all people who disagree with them do not share their goals and values. For example, if you favor shifting government programs to the market or civil society, you must not care about poor people.

There are lots of things that I think would be good for my students but nonetheless should not be required.

Aeon J. Skoble - 12/14/2004

I don't think any of would seriously endorse the sort of "diversity requirement" you describe. What would be nice, though, would be if lefty profs stopped (a) assuming that all people of good will necessarily agree with them, (b) ridiculing opposing points of view as a normal feature of classroom presentation, (c) actively discriminating against conservative and libertarian undergrads, grad students, and junior faculty.

Jonathan Dresner - 12/14/2004

A quick thought (I'm thinking about the larger issues, but haven't really time to put them out just now): "Because students are not exposed to a broader range of interpretions in an academic setting, according to Horowitz, they do not get a fully rounded eduction."

Would you suggest that universities impose a new distribution requirement: all students must take, along with their lit and lab science requirements, at least one course from a professor who represents each noteworthy slice of the political spectrum? Even if those views are irrelevant to the material? Or would it only apply to courses clearly identified as ideologically taught? Would a survey of political thought count for more than one credit, or is the ideology of the professor the only thing which determines credit?

David T. Beito - 12/13/2004

I don't think you are entirely accurate in your assessment of Horowitz's position. He actually makes a very similar argument as you do. He contends that the education of students is impoverished because they are not exposed to alternative conservative and libertarian voices. He would argue that the leftist monopoly (as do all monopolies) have made scholarship less innovative and lively than it would be if competitors were allowed.

Face it, Horowitz has a point. Political bias *does* have an impact on scholarship and thus interpretations of history, economics, etc. Because students are not exposed to a broader range of interpretions in an academic setting, according to Horowitz, they do not get a fully rounded eduction.

The same Horowitizian argument can be made in favor of greater religious diversity among scholars. Almost all my colleagues in Alabama are either atheists or liberal Christians. But few, if any students, are exposed to the perspective of fundamentalist Christians.

A good example of how this can have adverse consequences is Women's Studies. Because all the professors in this department seem to put forward the same leftist mantra on issues such as abortion and marriage, students never hear the voices of more traditional conservative and religious "moral values" women. As a result, women's studies tends to be highly doctrinaire and rigid IMHO.

Let me also point out that your concern that ideological diversity would create "bad scholarship" can also apply in cases where biological diversity is allowed to trump merit (i.e. good scholarship).

Taken together, it is pretty clear that the proponents of both ideological and biological diversity have very similar rationales for why their kind of "diversity" will enrich the university experience.

I think diversity is fine but it should be the consequence of a good education, not the focus. The focus for both scholars and students should be merit in my view and merit would include a willingness to be fair to competiting voices.

More later. Gotta do some grading.

Charles Johnson - 12/12/2004

Beito: "In response to evidence of this type, some conservatives, most notably David Horowitz, have called for universities to expand the existing use of race and sex (biological diversity) as factors in hiring to include ideological diversity.

"While I think that Horowitz makes a stronger case than many of his critics are willing to concede, I have never been sympathetic to the approach he recommends."

I have to differ here. There are many reasons to worry about hiring practices that are intended to skew towards race and gender "diversity" within the academy. But whatever you might decide in those deliberations, Horowitz's proposals are a very different beast. His case isn't compelling, either within the entrenched logic of skewed hiring or from without. It amounts to nothing less than a sustained assault on the idea of the University, in a way that hiring skewed by race or gender does not.

Here's why: one of the typical arguments given for policies that encourage demographic diversity is that in a society coping with a history of oppression (and a great deal of ideology coming out of academic institution to support various forms of that oppression), it's worthwhile to cultivate an academic community with people who come from historically excluded groups, because those people bring a systematically different set of life experiences to the discussion and therefore may be aware of arguments and evidence that may never be seriously aired in more insular academic settings.

Maybe that's true and maybe that's false, but it's important to see that it is importantly different from Horowitz's notion, which is that it is worthwhile to skew hiring practices based on the political conclusions that researchers come to. (This is connected, of course, to a whole raft of what is, effectively, ideological identity politics from the Right.) But there is absolutely no value whatsoever to diversity of conclusions. The point of the University is to build a community in a conclusion is taken to be worthwhile only insofar as (and only because) the argument for it is worthwhile. Horowitz's notion is to skew hiring in favor of certain conclusions whether the research and the argument supporting those conclusions measures up under standards of academic rigor or not; that is, to turn the idea of the University entirely on its head.

Think of it this way: demographic diversity arguments are intended to skew hiring based on non-academic factors. A bad idea? Perhaps. But Horowitz's plan is intended to skew hiring based on anti-academic factors. Of the two cases, I think Horowitz has very clearly got the less compelling and more dangerous one.