Tag Archives: liberty

The Campus Assault on American History

As a professional historian at Hamilton College, I teach my students that the United States was founded on the principles of limited government, voluntary exchange, respect for private property, and civil freedom.  Does any sane parent believe that more than a tiny fraction of students graduate from college these days with a deep and abiding appreciation of the worth of these principles? 

For Doubting Thomases, look no further than the eleven elite liberal arts colleges that comprise the New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC), which includes Amherst, Williams, Trinity, and Wesleyan.   Not one of these eleven colleges requires undergraduates to take a single course in American history.  Even worse, a substantial majority of these eleven elite colleges do not even require that students majoring in history take any American history courses. And none of the eleven history departments requires a two-semester American history sequence for its majors.

Non-Western history, however, has a privileged status in a majority of the departments.  Amherst requires of history majors that they take only “one course each in at least three different geographic areas.” The United States is but one of six geographic areas from which students can choose.  Bowdoin College’s history department offers eight fields of study.   Four “non-Euro/U.S. courses” are required, but not one US history course. In 2007, one-third of all history majors at my college, Hamilton, were graduated without one course in American history. 

As the American historians in my department battled to remedy this disgrace, the majority voted a minor concession: Starting with the class of 2012, majors must take one course in US history, although the non-Western requirement would remain: “Three courses must focus upon areas outside of Europe and the United States.” The downgrading of American history continues.

Libertarianism Is Not the Answer

I have to agree with Patrick Deneen and disagree with George Leef about the worrisome nature of rising libertarianism among students today. It is a troublesome development in my view. For Deneen, this trend essentially means a kind of “laissez faire” selfishness among students that emphasizes personal autonomy and material success and doesn’t allow for a proper sense of civic engagement and concern for others. Leef counters that if there is a libertarian trend, it is because students are recognizing the pernicious effects of government intervention in private life. He also insists that libertarians are indeed concerned with others, but on a personal basis, not through government welfare programs.

Continue reading Libertarianism Is Not the Answer

Libertarianism Among Students is the Least of our Worries

Professor Patrick Deneen’s Feb. 17 essay “Campus Libertarianism up, Civic Commitment Down” cries out for a response. He finds the apparent increase in libertarian thinking among college students disquieting, but I think that if this trend is real, it’s a reason for optimism. It indicates that young Americans are breaking free of the adulation of government that is so much a part of the conventional wisdom in this country.

Continue reading Libertarianism Among Students is the Least of our Worries

Campus Libertarianism up, Civic Commitment Down

One of the most mentioned findings in the annual UCLA survey of college freshmen is a decided trend toward more “liberal” political attitudes. The survey shows increased support for same-sex marriage (supported by 71.3% of students, representing a 6.4% increase since 2009); for a pro-choice position on abortion; for the legalization of marijuana; and a corresponding decrease in opposition to provision of public services to undocumented immigrants. One finding that seems at odds with the overall trend is support for national health care, which dropped nearly a point since 2010, and fourteen points since 2007.

As Mark Bauerlein rightly pointed out, the trends point not in a “liberal” direction, but rather one that is “libertarian,” with a strong stress upon being “individualists.” If there is one overwhelming conclusion that one can draw from this survey, today’s students are individualistic. As an article about the survey expressed, their dominant perspective is to “Live and Let Live (and Study).”

The study is striking for what it does not ask: while it asks about hot-button social issues ranging from same-sex marriage to abortion, it does not ask students very much about their views on the economy–something one would think in our current climate would be interesting to know (the survey claims that its findings should inform how issues should be framed in the upcoming Presidential election. If that is the case, why the avoidance of economic questions?).

My own more modest campus “survey” suggests that students are trending libertarian (what many would call “conservative”) in the economic sphere as well. In one class I teach at Georgetown, I assign students a short paper asking them to provide a “political autobiography.” I have been struck over the past several years at the increasing number of students who self-describe as “socially liberal and economically conservative.” Their political lexicon is fairly impoverished (doubtless with thanks to our political media), but what they in fact disclose is a growing embrace of a consistent ethic of libertarianism. If we take their fading support of national health care as a proxy for their view about government interference in the economy, then we can indeed conclude that today’s students demonstrate an overall disposition toward “live and let live,” in both the social and economic realms.

Toleration, Diversity and Me

This conclusion, I would submit, ought to be a source of deep concern for those who care about the future of the American polity.

The overarching emphasis in the highest echelons of society–among our “elites,” and especially those working at our public schools and universities, as well as in the media–has been upon the need for “toleration” and “diversity.” The underlying belief informing this widespread view is that a high level of toleration toward others will result in a decrease in social conflict, the cessation of the mistreatment of minorities and outsiders, and a more peaceful and hence prosperous society. This message has clearly been internalized by today’s students: among the worst possible sins one can commit is to be a “Hater”–or, in their parlance, to “H8.” To render judgments or critical views toward lifestyle decisions is to engage in an unacceptable form of prejudice; people should be allowed to behave in whatever way they wish, so long as no one is physically harmed (though, it should be noted, self-destructive behaviors such as smoking are now severely frowned upon–only 2% of the surveyed population today acknowledges being a smoker). In what possible way could one be disquieted by this seemingly praiseworthy disposition of toleration and acceptance of diversity?

What the data also demonstrates is a keen and intense emphasis on the self. Today’s students simultaneously urge toleration toward others, but also expect to be left alone. Their overarching emphasis upon individual achievement–particularly in the area of career advancement–suggests that the message of “toleration” and “diversity” seamlessly co-exists with a self-centered focus on material success and personal lifestyle autonomy. At risk is a cultivated belief in civic membership, a sense of shared fate and even forms of self-sacrifice.

One telling aspect of the survey has, to my knowledge, received no attention: while 72.3% state that the “chief benefit of college is to increase one’s earning power,” only 2% of current college graduates are enrolled in an ROTC or other military program. While likely career choices are fragmented among many possible choices (with the largest numbers of responses clustering around the choices of engineer, physician and business, together totaling 28%), only 1.5% responded that they foresaw a military career; 0.9% intended to enter government or public policy; and .1% stated an intention to become a member of the clergy. As many respondents indicated a likely future of unemployment (1.5%) as those willing to serve in the military!

Increasing Earning Power

Contemporary liberals who significantly shape the views of today’s young (especially through the media – 50% of respondents indicated watching television more than 3 hours a day) believe that they are ushering in a future of toleration and “laissez-faire.” However, this attitude in fact buttresses the other overwhelming finding of the survey: that students today are “in it” for themselves. Their view of college is already determined before they enroll: the purpose of college is to increase their earning power. They are not in college to be liberally educated or to understand the “meaning of life.” They are not there to prepare for a life of responsible citizenship, parenthood and neighborliness. They are “capitalist tools,” people whose lives are dominated by professional ambition and bottom-line accounting.

Several disquieting questions should come to mind: what kinds of citizens will these people grow up to be? What kinds of parents and what kinds of neighbors? They will likely be willing to leave other people alone–but will they care about others? Will they love? Will they serve? Will they sacrifice? According Charles Murray in his recent book Coming Apart, it is the upper classes (which will be composed of the students in this survey) that have largely abandoned any idea of trusteeship and moral and civic responsibility toward those who have not won the meritocratic sweepstakes. The survey suggests that this divide will only deepen in coming years.

I fear that we are not ushering in a utopia of toleration and sensitivity, but one of indifference and self-absorption. Today’s young people have deeply absorbed the lessons that have been taught them by their elders. Do we truly think a civilization can persist when it teaches its young that the most important thing in life is indifference toward others and that the means to happiness is earning the most money?

The Keeton Case–An Abuse of Academic Power

Cross-posted from NAS.

KEETON.jpg

Several weeks ago, KC Johnson–a scholar I much admire, not least for his fearless dedication to principle–published an essay on Minding the Campus under the title, “Keeton Defense Contradicts NAS Principles.”  We offered Professor Johnson the opportunity to re-post his article or contribute a further statement on the NAS website.  He accepted and posted both the article and an addendum of about the same length as his original.

I would like to respond in defense of the NAS’s position.  But, first, for those who haven’t followed the controversy, a summary.

Keeton So Far

It concerns a court case in Georgia.  Jennifer Keeton was a graduate student at Augusta State University (ASU) where she began studying for a degree in Counselor Education in fall 2009.  She completed two regular semesters and two summer sessions but was then dismissed from the program because she refused to participate in a “remediation plan” that was designed either to change her views on homosexuality or convince her to misrepresent those views.  Miss Keeton, citing her Christian beliefs, held that homosexuality is a form of “identity confusion,” and had stated this view in class.  The faculty members involved rejected her view and cited it as “a violation of the codes of ethics to which counselors and counselors-in-training are required to adhere.”  The remediation plan to which she was assigned singled out Miss Keeton’s view that homosexuality is a “lifestyle,” and posited that “sexual orientation is not a lifestyle or choice, but a state of being.”   (The quotations are from Keeton’s complaint in U.S. District Court, July 21, 2010.)

The most recent development was a decision handed down by a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit, January 6, 2012.  The three judges upheld an earlier ruling denying Keeton’s motion for a preliminary injunction against her dismissal from the program.

This is likely to be only a way-station in Keeton’s search for legal relief.  But the 11th Circuit panel did use some strong language to uphold the Augusta State University’s position.  Keeton had claimed that the college had violated her First Amendment rights to free speech by (in the words of the panel) “discriminating against her viewpoint; by retaliating against her for exercising her First Amendment rights and finally by compelling her to express beliefs with which she disagrees.”  To these claims, the panel replied that the “ASU’s counseling program is not a traditional public forum,” but a “supervised learning experience,” and therefore the First Amendment does not apply.  It also held that ASU didn’t impose the remediation plan out of a desire “to discriminate against her personal and religious viewpoint,” but because it plausibly believed Keeton intended “to impose her personal religious views on her clients.”  The court decided that ASU “officials were not asking her to change her beliefs.”  Rather, the school’s primary concern was her “ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor” and her “ability to maintain ethical behavior in all counseling situations.”  At particular issue was Keeton’s supposed determination to “refer clients to conversion therapy,” i.e. therapy aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation.

In general, the 11th Circuit panel upheld the idea that ASU acted appropriately because the view of homosexuality its actions embody is warranted by the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics.  The panel recognized that, “As a condition of continuing as a student in the ASU counseling program, Defendants required Miss Keeton to pledge to affirm the morality of sexual conduct she believes immoral,” but found this requirement educationally and professionally appropriate.  That’s because, “Keeton expressed her intent to violate several provisions of the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Code of Ethics, which ASU was required to adopt and teach in order to offer a counseling program accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).

NAS’s Position

The National Association of Scholars along with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) filed an amicus brief on behalf of Keeton.  It was drafted by Eugene Volokh and filed in October 2010.  We argued that Keeton’s First Amendment rights had indeed been trampled.  The brief said that the First Amendment presumptively forbids imposing special obligations on university students who express particular viewpoints; that the lower court had erred in equating ASU’s retaliation against Keeton with normal curricular decisions; and that the lower court’s decision–to rely on “academic standards” as a tool for barring disfavored speech–would justify a vast range of restrictions on intellectual freedom.

When the 11th Circuit panel handed down its decision, NAS reiterated these points.  We think the panel made a mistake.  One dimension of the mistake is that it would force Christians, like Miss Keeton, who believe that homosexuality is immoral, to either tailor their beliefs to ACA standards or similar doctrinaire social positions, or else forego careers in the counseling profession.  That is, of course, just one consequence.  The 11th Circuit panel’s decision opens the door for colleges and universities to de-select students holding any beliefs that happen to be in disfavor with the factions that dominate the increasingly ideological academic and professional associations.  It doesn’t take much imagination to see where this leads.

Professor Johnson’s Criticisms of NAS

Professor Johnson’s criticisms should be read in full in his own words, but for the sake of brevity, I will summarize.  He makes two main points.  First, the panel’s ruling would not exclude “Christians” from the counseling profession.  Second, the NAS’s position in the Keeton case contradicts NAS’s own defense of equal treatment for all on campus.

My Response

The first criticism is simply a matter of whether the word “Christians” is taken to mean “all Christians” or “some Christians.”  I would have thought that both context and common sense would have favored the latter reading.  There are clearly many Christian denominations that have embraced contemporary views of homosexuality.  In New York City, it is easy to find Christian churches flying the rainbow gay flag.  But there are also many denominations that have stayed with traditional Christian teachings that homosexual behavior is always wrong.  Keeton comes from a branch of Christianity of that type.  I don’t know the proportions of the denominations on either side, but I’ll stick with the view that there are substantial numbers of Christians who would be excluded from the counseling profession if the 11th Circuit panel’s decision stands.

Is the NAS, by defending Keeton’s right to express her views on homosexuality, forsaking its defense of equal treatment for all on campus?  Not at all.  We defended Keeton because she was (and at the moment still is) the object of an abuse of academic power.  She should have the right to hold and express her views on homosexuality without having to give up her educational and career aspirations.  It is plain that her views are indeed in conflict with the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics, and that this Code has been given further force by the counseling education accreditation body, CACREP.  But existence of a bureaucratic apparatus to enforce a form of political correctness does not change its ideological character.

The court in this case has given extraordinary deference to the mechanism by which mere opinions are elevated to the status of professional standards.  There is no deep and compelling reason why all members of the counseling profession should be made to hew to a single view of homosexuality.  Realistically, the vast majority of people seeking professional careers in counseling in the United States today are going to be not only relaxed about homosexuality, but also enthusiastic about the principle of affirming the sexual orientations of clients.   But does the counseling profession have any room at all for the minority who have dissenting opinions?   We think it should, and that universities offering graduate instruction in this field should champion the principle of intellectual diversity, even if that means challenging the edicts of accreditors and professional associations.  Those edicts should not outweigh the First Amendment or a student’s freedom of conscience.

“Equal treatment” in this case means protecting those who espouse unpopular views, even highly disfavored ones.  Keeton posed no threat to other students or to potential clients.  She wore her views openly and gave fair warning to anyone who disagreed with her.  She should not have been denied the opportunity to complete her degree program merely because she espouses an unpopular opinion.

An Emotionally Charged Issue

The treatment of gays and lesbians, as well as other sexual minorities, remains a fraught issue in American society.  We have no wish to stereotype the contending views and the NAS does not take positions on matters outside higher education.  We do not advocate for or against the view that counselors should affirm the sexual orientation of their clients.  Our position, rather, is that universities should leave their students free to decide.  The error of Augusta State University–a public institution–was to impose its own doctrinal position on Miss Keeton.

Professor Johnson thinks that doctrine well founded and consonant with the way in which the counseling profession should go about his work.  He may be right.  But the wholesomeness of the doctrine is not the issue.  The issue is rather whether a public university should be imposing a doctrine at all.

The argument that it should impose this particular doctrine–that counselors should affirm the sexuality of their clients–is that it embodies a correct standard of professional practice.  Not to impose it would be to accede to a form of malpractice.

The argument against imposing this particular doctrine is that it is indeed “doctrine”–an attempt to foreclose discussion on a matter that remains intellectually and morally unsettled.

We realize that to say an issue is “unsettled” pleases neither of the sides who are invested in the view that they have the right answer and that all reasonable people ought to be compelled by reason and evidence to agree with them.  NAS, however, is determined to favor First Amendment freedom, even in circumstances where individuals for whom we have the highest respect regard the views to be protected as undeserving.

What’s Next

Keeton is appealing the panel’s decision by asking the 11th Circuit to give her case full consideration.  Her lawyers are focusing on the questions: (1) “Whether a state university may require a student to promise to sincerely convey a controversial moral judgment that the student disbelieves as a condition of receipt of a state education;” and (2) whether persons have a right against state-compelled speech in any context other than one in which the state makes their presence mandatory.”   That is to say, the appeal narrows the dispute from whether Keeton’s First Amendment rights were violated to the more specific question of whether a state university has the power to require from a student a sincere promise to uphold a “controversial moral judgment.”

This might sound dry, but the matter at stake is one of real importance.  As Keeton’s petition to the 11th Circuit for a re-hearing eloquently puts it:

This case presents a rare instance of blatant, express, and coercive reeducation that should be intolerable across the political spectrum. A business school could not require its students to “affirm” capitalism or disavow socialism as a condition of receipt of an education. A geology department could not require its students to affirm–or deny–the reality of global warming to avoid expulsion. A law school could not require its students to affirm–or deny–the interpretive or moral legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence, nor require students to promise to defend–or oppose–the death penalty in their future professional efforts. A medical school could not require its students to affirm–or deny–female circumcision or sex-change operations. A political science department could not require its students to affirm any particular school of political thought or civic policy proposal. Nor could any of these educators require students to give a running account of the status of their beliefs, and make “correct” beliefs and a promise of ideological cooperation (instead of academic performance) the condition of continuing receipt of a State education.

 The ASU faculty’s conduct in this case is a renunciation of individual conscience and academic freedom, and is intolerable under the First Amendment.

Can Keeton be required “to announce the morality of homosexual sex to clients seeking such approval?”  The 11th Circuit panel said yes.  But this kind of compulsion is deeply at odds with ordinary ideas of American freedom.  If one is seeking to join an organization that has an official creed–be it a church or a group organized to save wildlife, promote the rights of sexual minorities, or advance gun ownership–it would be perfectly reasonable to expect that agreement with the creed would be a condition of membership.  Universities have, within a limited sphere, a right to creeds of their own, as when they demand acceptance of principles of academic integrity as a condition of admission.  But this zone of enforced agreement should not extend to matters of moral judgment beyond the competence of the university to decide.

Conventional opinion now favors the view that homosexuality is simply part of the natural range of human variation.  Conventional opinion might well be right, but that is not really any kind of argument against the right of a minority to hold a dissenting view.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this case is that ASU presented Keeton with an alternative.  According to ASU officials, she was free to hold her personal beliefs so long as she promised to lie about them in her dealings with clients.  The counsel for the University officials explained:

“[I]s it a requirement that the counselor lie? Absolutely.”

 And:

“She doesn’t have to believe it. But she does have to tell the client that [it’s okay to be gay].”

It is hard to think of more vivid evidence that a university has crossed a line that should never be crossed when it conceives of its academic standards as a requirement to lie.

Betrayal of Liberty on Campus

Jan Blits.jpg(This is the text of a speech delivered July 16 to the Campus Freedom Network conference at Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pa.)

Not many years ago, just about every college student loved liberty. Except for some die-hard Marxists (who opposed not only liberty of speech, but liberty as such), it was hard to find any students (or faculty) who would defend the suppression of speech on campus. Freedom was the clear rule; suppression the rare exception. Today, unfortunately, as I’m sure all of you know, the reverse seems true. Having been raised at least since kindergarten (or perhaps from birth) on the moral imperative of political correctness, many–I fear, most–college students, without a moment’s thought, accept–and even demand–censorship, including, perhaps most of all, self-censorship. A closed mind is a good mind, in their view.

Over the past twenty-five years, I’ve witnessed one threat after another to freedom at my university. Some threats tried to curtail politically unpopular research. Others tried to restrict what students could say. The aim was always the same–to advance the censors’ political agenda by stifling their critics. The goal was to turn the university into a one-party institution.

Continue reading Betrayal of Liberty on Campus

Single-Sex Dorms Are a Human Rights Violation?

Just exactly how far will the left go to interfere with religious liberty and common sense?   Right after John Garvey, president of Catholic University, announced that the university would return to single sex dorms,  GW Law professor John Banzaf, a highly credentialed member of the hard left legal establishment, sent a notice of intent to sue under the D.C. Human Rights Act.  Apparently he is serious.

On his own website Banzaf boasts of a number of honorifics including, “the Ralph Nader of Junk Food” and the “Osama bin Laden of Torts,” as well as the “Father of Potty Parity” (for his lawsuits over restroom access). He explains why he is so upset by Catholic University’s plan:
“This takes us back to the 1950s and 1960s when dorms were segregated. But we’ve come a long way now, and we shouldn’t go back. They’re going back to the ‘good old days’ when boys were in one dorm and girls in the other. That was fine in ‘Leave It To Beaver,’ but it’s not appropriate now.”
A coed dorm is a basic human right?  What’s next, video games and beer pong?
Catholic University is a big institution that can afford lawyers.  But these kinds of threats of litigation show the need for stronger, and more explicit, religious liberty protections attached to “human rights” legislation, especially for the little guy for whom the threat of a lawsuit is chilling indeed.

A Campaign Against the Koch Foundation

t1larg.david.koch.jpg

There is an old saying in politics that “They don’t scream unless you hurt them.”  When your adversaries scream, it is a good sign that your measures have been effective. Judged by this standard, the Koch Brothers (David and Charles) have been very effective in recent years in advancing their causes of limited government and classical liberalism, much to the discomfort of liberal foes promoting business regulation, higher taxes, and ObamaCare.

The Koch brothers have been on the receiving end of non-stop attacks from liberal journalists and academics ever since Jane Mayer published a hit piece on them last year in The New Yorker purporting to show that their contributions were behind the rise of the “Tea Party” movement.  This wildly exaggerated claim was meant to cast the Koch brothers as great villains, but villains possessed of a satanic combination of power and tactical brilliance.  In a predictable course, Mayer’s fairy tale was circulated by the columnists and editorial writers of the New York Times and from there through a network of second-level columnists and political magazines until at length it came to the attention of the credulous foot soldiers of the liberal-left who have kept the pot boiling in recent months with ever more inventive and exaggerated versions of the original lie.     
 
The latest controversy surrounding the Kochs arises from an article published last week in the St. Petersburg Times titled, “Billionaire’s Role in Hiring Decisions at Florida State University Raises Questions.”  The author insinuates that the Koch Foundation was trying to “buy off” the Economics Department at Florida State University through a $1.5 million grant (paid over six years) to hire new faculty and to support graduate fellowships under a program in “political economy and free enterprise.”  Under the grant, a three-person faculty committee was set up to review candidates for the positions, including one member designated by the Foundation.  The paper suggested that by designating a member of the review committee the Foundation was undermining academic freedom by interfering in the faculty’s right to appoint colleagues on the basis of professional competence.   

Continue reading A Campaign Against the Koch Foundation

150 Years of Contempt for Free Markets

Alan S. Kahan has cast new light on an ongoing conflict with origins in classical antiquity if not earlier. Kahan’s Mind vs. Money: The War Between Intellectuals and Capitalism is a learned and engaging account of the tension between the amorality of the marketplace and the moralism of would-be priestly authorities. Until the Enlightenment, merchants were forced to bow before the courtly classes of the aristocracy, which staffed the military, and the clergy, which surveilled the public morality of the peasantry. But the Enlightenment, in challenging the authority of the aristocracy and the priesthood, opened up space for unbowed commerce, and hence the merchant middle class, to thrive. There are those, once largely on the right, today largely on the left, who have never forgiven the Enlightenment for this sin against the would-be guardians of morality.
The book’s central themes were laid out in 1834 by the German poet Heinrich Heine. Heine, who had nothing but contempt for American money-making, spoke of the United States as “that big pig-pen of freedom/Inhabited by boors living in equality.” Heine’s romantic ambitions yearned to transcend mere material freedom. He saw the intellectuals as the basis for the new aristocracy of virtue. “It is no longer a matter of destroying the old church,” he explained, “but rather building a new one, and far from wanting to annihilate the clergy, today we want to make ourselves priests.” But while Heine hoped a clerisy would remake the world he also saw an abyss ahead. “A drama will be performed in Germany,” he prophesied, “in contrast with which the French Revolution will seem a mere peaceful idyll.”

Continue reading 150 Years of Contempt for Free Markets

Capitalism on Campus – Watch Now

Video of our Capitalism on Campus event last week is now available here on on the Manhattan Institute site. The first two videos feature panels on the state of instruction in capitalism and political economy, showcasing a diverse range of academics from Jeffrey A. Miron, professor of economics and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard, to Jerry Muller, professor of history at Catholic University. The third video features the luncheon speaker, Robert P. George of Princeton University. If you’re at all interested in the topic you’d be well-served to take a look.

Why So Few Conservative And Libertarian Professors?

Two researchers offer a new twist on an old question—why do college professors overwhelmingly lean to the left? Bias against conservatives is not the main reason, nor are the allegedly higher IQs of liberals, say Neil Gross of the University of British Columbia and Ethan Fosse of Harvard. Instead they suggest a theory of “path dependence” –few conservatives are attracted to work in scholarly fields dominated by the left, just as few males want to be nurses in a traditionally female field. People tend to giggle when a man wants to become a nurse, they say, and conservatives tend to feel similar embarrassment in entering leftist academe.
This giggle theory underrates what leftist domination does to faculties. In the recent book The Politically Correct University: Problems, Scope and Reforms, Charlotta Stern and I discuss groupthink mechanisms. The majoritarian procedure of each department means that once a majority leans left, the department will tend toward leftist uniformity. The pyramidal structure of each discipline means that publication, awards, grants, recommendations will follow the pyramid’s apex, and if the apex goes left it tends to sweep leftists/neuters into job posts throughout the pyramid.
If leftists have a lock on many fields, it means that non-left applicants will tend to be screened out. Awareness of that feeds back to the non-left student’s thoughts about the future. Self-selection is a function of the screening.

Continue reading Why So Few Conservative And Libertarian Professors?

Liberty Moves Against Liberty

Liberty University made a mistake in revoking recognition of its student Democratic club. But the argument put forth by the conservative Christian institution had some substance to it. Mathew Staver, dean of the university, and John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute both argued that religious freedom trumps questions of political balance. That’s true. A religious institution is certainly allowed to define its own mission and to promote or reject messages in accordance with that mission. Notre Dame would have been within its rights to decide against giving an abortion-approving president a platform. And no one should be surprised if a Quaker institution rejects a gung-ho militaristic club, or if a Catholic university took a dim view of a Peter Singer infanticide club that reflects the Princeton ethicist’s belief that parents should legally have at least 30 days to kill their newborns if they wish. At a public university, almost all clubs and associations should be approved. Religious institutions can and should exert greater control. The Democratic club at Liberty has not been disbanded. But it cannot use the Liberty name and will likely not be eligible for university funding
The problem is that Liberty moved against its Democratic club, not because that club promoted a cause out of sync with the university’s religious message, but because club members supported some pro-choice politicians. But not all Democrats approve abortion, and Liberty’s message here is, in effect, that there is no point in Democratic students working with Democratic politicians to change their minds on abortion or to work on other causes of common interest. Apparently Republicans are the only party Liberty students should be working with and perhaps voting for. This stance comes close to announcing that Liberty is a permanent appendage of the Republican party.
Another consideration: the campuses have been so battered by censorship and violations of free expression – drowning out of speakers, theft of campus newspapers, the creation of “free speech zones” to confine student demonstrators to tiny and obscure areas – that administrators should bend over backward to give the edge to freedom of expression.
Also, it’s worth noting in passing that Republican and conservative clubs on campus are regularly quashed or defunded, often with one or two citations on Google or none at all. Liberty’s decision drew more the 300 Google comments and reports. You would almost think that the press and the campuses are less interested in the general issue of free expression than in the question of whether the ox on the left is being gored.