Always great to read your summaries! With reference to the first two, I feel there there are a couple of major missing pieces in your discussion - and, more generally, in a lot of conversations I hear around HxA:
1) When I asked Google for a 'definition of "conservative"', here is the response:
"A conservative is someone or something that favors tradition, opposes rapid change, and prefers cautious, moderate approaches over risky or extreme ones. It implies a desire to preserve existing institutions and values, often appearing as traditional in style, or cautious in estimating amounts."
It would seem to me that the very nature of academia is somewhat at odds with the definition of "conservative." People seek an education so that they can grow, improve, gain socio-economic mobility... in other words, to change. Conservatives generally do not like change. So, right off the bat, why is it in any way surprising that academia skews liberal?
2) Regarding the research on social studies, again, let's think for a moment about what most social studies are about: society. Most conservatives tend to favor individualism, it would seem more shocking to find that a significant number of social science research studies were NOT left-leaning.
3) More generally, I find that your conclusions in both summaries show a concerning bias. Specifically, let me point out two points:
* Both studies in the first summary show a widening gap in recent decades. This widening gap has been seen across many parts of society, and is reflection of the increasing polarization that we are seeing across society. It would be weird to see that the gap has stayed the same or shrunk in academia.
* In your second summary, you conclude "the results suggest that educational attainment is becoming increasingly entangled with people’s political identities". Again, there is an underlying societal trend that can explain at least part of the growing gap, but also it seems entirely natural that people who go into education with a certain leaning, will likely grow more convinced as they gain additional knowledge that supports their belief system to being with. The fact that "business and engineering majors tended to shift right" shows that this is not an issue unique to liberals.
Why do I say this is a "concerning bias"? A lot of the writing I see in HxA seems to suggest (sometimes very openly) that ideological positions are a bad thing. Your own article states that some of the findings you summarize "raises concerns about ideological homogeneity". It is a bit insulting to the academic community to assume that being aligned with an ideological or political framework means that the research or teaching will somehow be tainted and will lead to homogeneity. If anything, we have overwhelming evidence that it is those with conservative views that frequently try to impose their ideology on others, by banning books, by scrutinizing syllabi, by eliminating programs.
Paolo, thanks for these thoughts! Always valuable to have friendly pushback. I'll respond point by point:
1) First, I think we probably have different starting assumptions about the nature of academia and the reasons people seek college education. If we think that the purpose of the university is to transform society or pursue specific (left-oriented) social goals, then it makes perfect sense for liberals to be overrepresented in academia. But to the extent that the academic project is about the pursuit of truth and intellectual development, I don't see why it should select for people of one political persuasion over another. All of the reasons for pursuing college that you named - growth, improvement, social mobility - are all compatible with conservatism. Conservatism entails a preference for social tradition over social change, that's true, but it also emphasizes virtue and individual responsibility, both of which demand growth and improvement on a personal level. Plenty of conservatives seek out finance, business, and MBA degrees in pursuit of social mobility.
2) True, conservatives tend to emphasize individualism (or at least more local, kin-based or religious community-based social groupings) and individualist explanations for social phenomena. Still, it doesn't follow in my mind that they should be less concerned than liberals with society or social issues. Why should it be the case that they produce less scholarship than liberals, instead of the same volume of scholarship from a different perspective? This was my understanding of your argument, but let me know if I've misunderstood. I have heard arguments that "reality has a liberal bias" (ie, that most social science is left-leaning because that is what reality supports), but that is a different claim, and not what I take you to be saying.
3) I think you're referring in both cases to the Prinzing & Vazquez study (correct me if I'm mistaken). It's certainly true that polarization has been rising across society, which I understand as "liberals and conservatives have decreasing common ground and increasing hostility toward each other." That has no direct connection to the finding that the college educated are becoming more liberal, unless universities are increasingly attracting exclusively liberals, or something about the college experience shifts people more to the left. We might disagree about whether that is something that requires explanation (I think it at least merits attention). I agree it wouldn't be surprising to find that college simply reinforces people's existing beliefs, so perhaps the results are a function of most students entering college already liberal and leaving even more liberal. But check out the Sankey diagram in figure 2, panel B in the paper: much of the movement toward the liberal side of the spectrum was driven by moderates shifting to become liberal and conservative students shifting to become moderate. There was some movement in the opposite direction as well (liberals becoming moderate; moderates becoming conservative), but less.
Finally, I think there's probably a variety of views in HxA about the value of individual scholars having an ideological position. I know some believe that we should all each strive to be dispassionate and neutral. I don't personally think that is possible (to put aside the question of desirability), so my own belief is that we should accept that everyone will approach their work from some perspective - but that these perspectives require a degree of homogeneity to keep the epistemic climate healthy in a discipline that is serious about generating knowledge. When one perspective begins to dominate for illegitimate reasons (ie, not because it has been conclusively shown to be the best according to disciplinary standards, but because alternative perspectives are socially or politically unpalatable), we lose one of the most powerful tools in our epistemic arsenal: disagreement! So I would distinguish between individual scholars having an ideological position (which is fine in my opinion) and ideological homogeneity on the level of an entire discipline (epistemically detrimental). It's helpful to know if that distinction doesn't come across in writing from HxA.
And yes, there is ample evidence of attempts at censorship and control by the political right- although I would argue that that tendency is not unique to conservatives and more so a function of who has political and cultural power at any given time. What has stood out to me is the remarkable symmetry in the tactics taken by both the political left and right at different points in time (contrast the period between ~2012-2022, when the left was particularly culturally dominant, to the current period starting around 2023, when the right began gaining tremendous political and also cultural influence).
I'm curious to know if this addressed your comments. Thanks as always for your engagement, we all find your perspective very valuable.
Always great to read your summaries! With reference to the first two, I feel there there are a couple of major missing pieces in your discussion - and, more generally, in a lot of conversations I hear around HxA:
1) When I asked Google for a 'definition of "conservative"', here is the response:
"A conservative is someone or something that favors tradition, opposes rapid change, and prefers cautious, moderate approaches over risky or extreme ones. It implies a desire to preserve existing institutions and values, often appearing as traditional in style, or cautious in estimating amounts."
It would seem to me that the very nature of academia is somewhat at odds with the definition of "conservative." People seek an education so that they can grow, improve, gain socio-economic mobility... in other words, to change. Conservatives generally do not like change. So, right off the bat, why is it in any way surprising that academia skews liberal?
2) Regarding the research on social studies, again, let's think for a moment about what most social studies are about: society. Most conservatives tend to favor individualism, it would seem more shocking to find that a significant number of social science research studies were NOT left-leaning.
3) More generally, I find that your conclusions in both summaries show a concerning bias. Specifically, let me point out two points:
* Both studies in the first summary show a widening gap in recent decades. This widening gap has been seen across many parts of society, and is reflection of the increasing polarization that we are seeing across society. It would be weird to see that the gap has stayed the same or shrunk in academia.
* In your second summary, you conclude "the results suggest that educational attainment is becoming increasingly entangled with people’s political identities". Again, there is an underlying societal trend that can explain at least part of the growing gap, but also it seems entirely natural that people who go into education with a certain leaning, will likely grow more convinced as they gain additional knowledge that supports their belief system to being with. The fact that "business and engineering majors tended to shift right" shows that this is not an issue unique to liberals.
Why do I say this is a "concerning bias"? A lot of the writing I see in HxA seems to suggest (sometimes very openly) that ideological positions are a bad thing. Your own article states that some of the findings you summarize "raises concerns about ideological homogeneity". It is a bit insulting to the academic community to assume that being aligned with an ideological or political framework means that the research or teaching will somehow be tainted and will lead to homogeneity. If anything, we have overwhelming evidence that it is those with conservative views that frequently try to impose their ideology on others, by banning books, by scrutinizing syllabi, by eliminating programs.
Paolo, thanks for these thoughts! Always valuable to have friendly pushback. I'll respond point by point:
1) First, I think we probably have different starting assumptions about the nature of academia and the reasons people seek college education. If we think that the purpose of the university is to transform society or pursue specific (left-oriented) social goals, then it makes perfect sense for liberals to be overrepresented in academia. But to the extent that the academic project is about the pursuit of truth and intellectual development, I don't see why it should select for people of one political persuasion over another. All of the reasons for pursuing college that you named - growth, improvement, social mobility - are all compatible with conservatism. Conservatism entails a preference for social tradition over social change, that's true, but it also emphasizes virtue and individual responsibility, both of which demand growth and improvement on a personal level. Plenty of conservatives seek out finance, business, and MBA degrees in pursuit of social mobility.
2) True, conservatives tend to emphasize individualism (or at least more local, kin-based or religious community-based social groupings) and individualist explanations for social phenomena. Still, it doesn't follow in my mind that they should be less concerned than liberals with society or social issues. Why should it be the case that they produce less scholarship than liberals, instead of the same volume of scholarship from a different perspective? This was my understanding of your argument, but let me know if I've misunderstood. I have heard arguments that "reality has a liberal bias" (ie, that most social science is left-leaning because that is what reality supports), but that is a different claim, and not what I take you to be saying.
3) I think you're referring in both cases to the Prinzing & Vazquez study (correct me if I'm mistaken). It's certainly true that polarization has been rising across society, which I understand as "liberals and conservatives have decreasing common ground and increasing hostility toward each other." That has no direct connection to the finding that the college educated are becoming more liberal, unless universities are increasingly attracting exclusively liberals, or something about the college experience shifts people more to the left. We might disagree about whether that is something that requires explanation (I think it at least merits attention). I agree it wouldn't be surprising to find that college simply reinforces people's existing beliefs, so perhaps the results are a function of most students entering college already liberal and leaving even more liberal. But check out the Sankey diagram in figure 2, panel B in the paper: much of the movement toward the liberal side of the spectrum was driven by moderates shifting to become liberal and conservative students shifting to become moderate. There was some movement in the opposite direction as well (liberals becoming moderate; moderates becoming conservative), but less.
Finally, I think there's probably a variety of views in HxA about the value of individual scholars having an ideological position. I know some believe that we should all each strive to be dispassionate and neutral. I don't personally think that is possible (to put aside the question of desirability), so my own belief is that we should accept that everyone will approach their work from some perspective - but that these perspectives require a degree of homogeneity to keep the epistemic climate healthy in a discipline that is serious about generating knowledge. When one perspective begins to dominate for illegitimate reasons (ie, not because it has been conclusively shown to be the best according to disciplinary standards, but because alternative perspectives are socially or politically unpalatable), we lose one of the most powerful tools in our epistemic arsenal: disagreement! So I would distinguish between individual scholars having an ideological position (which is fine in my opinion) and ideological homogeneity on the level of an entire discipline (epistemically detrimental). It's helpful to know if that distinction doesn't come across in writing from HxA.
And yes, there is ample evidence of attempts at censorship and control by the political right- although I would argue that that tendency is not unique to conservatives and more so a function of who has political and cultural power at any given time. What has stood out to me is the remarkable symmetry in the tactics taken by both the political left and right at different points in time (contrast the period between ~2012-2022, when the left was particularly culturally dominant, to the current period starting around 2023, when the right began gaining tremendous political and also cultural influence).
I'm curious to know if this addressed your comments. Thanks as always for your engagement, we all find your perspective very valuable.