Political Conformity on College Campuses Unacceptable

According to a survey conducted by Frank Luntz following the 2000 Presidential elections, 84% of Ivy League professors voted for Al Gore whereas only 7% admitted to casting their ballots for George W. Bush. Similar, if not more lopsided, results recurred 4 years later in the ‘04 race.

Opensecrets.org, a website that tracks federal campaign contributions made by both individuals and institutions reported the 20 colleges and universities which donated the most in this past presidential election cycle. Leading the pack were the University of California at Berkeley, Harvard, and Stanford which favored Democratic candidates by 92%, 96%, and 92% respectively. Democrats received majority contributions from all 20 schools. 12 schools favored Democrats by over 90% and all but 2 of the 20 institutions of higher learning donated more than 84% of funds to Democrats. The most pro-Republican school which made the list was the University of Texas, and although George W. Bush is a Texan native, the 38% of funds he received from his state’s largest public university was approximately the same as the support he received from Massachusetts in the official election (37%).

As these results demonstrate, America’s institutions of higher learning consist of faculties which overwhelmingly hold liberal political views. And if you doubt or question these results, there are multitudinous other studies that confirm these conclusions. So, what does this mean and why is extreme conformity of intellectual thought on college campuses so unacceptable?

The homogeneity of political views on college campuses is problematic because it interferes with the central purpose intended for the university according to the Western tradition: the disinterested pursuit of “truth.” In order to faithfully carry out this mission, conditions amenable to the search for truth must be present. What are these conditions and what environment is required? When answering this question, it’s useful to recall the wisdom expressed by John Stuart Mill in his famous essay On Liberty.

In this seminal masterpiece, the 19th century’s greatest champion of individual liberty laid out a compelling case that one of the prerequisites for the triumph of truth is the presence of diverse viewpoints because otherwise orthodox opinion, whatever it may be at any particular time and among any particular group, will gain a monopoly and go unchallenged. That is to say, if any one belief is shared by all or a large enough percentage of individuals whereby the small minority of those who dissent are intimidated or prevented from presenting their alternate perspective, the accepted belief will be assumed to be true beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore cease to receive the scrutiny it deserves. And why does this matter?

Because, as J.S. Mill so thoughtfully noted, few if any opinions are entirely true, and likewise, few if any opinions are wholly false. In other words, even those views which enjoy clear consensus support almost certainly are incomplete and would benefit from challenges by opposing arguments which might lead to amendments to the orthodox view or their reconfirmation which would further cement their validity. In either case, the incentives to include diverse perspectives, and the academic value gained from the presence of heterogenous political ideas are undeniable.

Additionally, the educational disservice and the psychological damage visited upon college students who are exposed to only one political ideology register additional strikes against acquiescing to the status quo - liberal dominance in the world of academia. What message is the university currently sending to conservative minded students whose deeply held beliefs (although shared by a majority of Americans) are consistently derided and uniformly subjugated to secondary if not tertiary status by their professors? The answer is that it sends a message that is antithetical to accomplishing one of the most cherished goals espoused by the university: diversity.

The Supreme Court has rejected the argument that affirmative action is necessary to correct historical discrimination. The sole justification for using racial preferences in college admissions recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark Bakke case (1978) was the educational benefit of having diverse views represented in the classroom. However, while colleges throughout the United States routinely lower their academic standards when considering "minority" applicants (read: everyone who is not a white male), they have, in fact, done everything possible to discourage true diversity - diversity of thought. Moreover, they have yet to offer any indication that, if left to their own devices, plans to remedy the widespread ideological conformity would be on the horizon. So, how does this conformity undermine the goal of diversity?

(1) Conservative students come to realize that their professors - intellectuals they look to as role models during a period when they are attempting to determine what to do with their lives - consistently hold political views alien to their own. In the absence of political opinions among faculty members which resemble or correspond with their own, conservative undergraduates naturally are left with the impression that, among academics, their views are considered (a) intellectually inferior, (b) unfit in the world of serious scholarship, and (c) effectively disqualifying them from an academic career.

(2) it creates an ideologically homogenous enclave which gives rise to the perception of consensus on topics which are, in actuality, widely disputed in the arena of public opinion. This false impression breeds an overconfidence that encourages the hostile, mocking, and derisive treatment of contrary positions.

Both of these effects, thus, make the present intellectual climate self-perpetuating and unlikely to improve absent some form of external pressure. Political homogeneity will continue to have an unwelcoming impact on conservative college students who, in terms of intellectual merit, are perfectly capable yet in terms of their political sentiments, totally anomalous. In addition to creating an uninviting environment (due to the high probability of colleague ostracism and exclusion) for potential conservative academics, this monopoly shelters academics from opposing views and leads them to assume there is consensus on various issues (after all, all of their colleagues agree) which (in the real world outside the ivory tower) the American public is sharply divided over... (to be continued)