The NYT thinks they have the answer:
typecasting. Chicken or egg?
From the news article: "Nearly half of the political lopsidedness in academia can be traced to four characteristics that liberals in general, and professors in particular, share: advanced degrees; a nonconservative religious theology (which includes liberal Protestants and Jews, and
(
Read more... )
An honest and critical examination of philosophy, history, and similar subjects which demand critical thinking and honest evaluation of societal, moral, ethical, and political issues is simply not going to mix well with a deeply conservative view. Certainly sciences (i.e. medicine) require critical thinking skills as well, but not necessarily that those skills be applied to the same kinds of issues.
I think the conservative (particularly in religious terms) has to be incredibly deep before it can withstand rigorous questioning, without which it is difficult to achieve academic success in the so-called liberal arts. I see many students either undergo dramatic transformations of world-view, or elect to leave academia altogether, or move towards fields of study which pose less challenge to their conservative ideologies. Witness the development of 'alternative' conservative education programs, from conservatively based elementary school & home schooling curricula to the dubious universities like Oral Roberts....
Reply
Completely. I've always seen more conservatives to be found in the academia of economics, law, business, etc than other disciplines. Interestingly enough, in the schools of design/arts you'll find this almost economic split (among students) b/n fine arts (overwhelmingly liberal) vs graphic design (surprisingly conservative, or moderate). It was very odd to be the most liberal of graphic design students (undergrad and grad) and the more conservative of my friends in printmaking.
Reply
Reply
If you have a substantive critique, feel free to elaborate; I'm listening. Otherwise...
Reply
Leave a comment