No stoopid people need apply
As everyone knows, American academia leans left. Not like the Leaning Tower of Pisa leans–more like the way a ski jumper leans out over his skis when he sails off the jump. Professors who are registered members of left-wing political parties (Democrat, Green, etc.) outnumber members of right-wing parties (Republican, Constitution, etc.) by staggering proportions–for example, at Williams College (MA) only Republicans can be found on a faculty of almost 200; at the University of Colorado at Boulder, leftists outnumber rightists in the English department 37-0; at Brown in the history department, it's 17-0. You get the point. Recently, the chair of the philosophy department at Duke, Robert Barnard, explained why this is so. He was quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education, but since I can't find it on their site, I'll refer to the citation of his remarks by The New Criterion:
Last month, The Chronicle ran an advertisement placed by the Duke Conservative Union which called on Duke's president to address herself to the lack of political diversity among Duke's faculty. Duke in this respect looks a lot like most other universities: in its history department, for example, there were thirty-two registered Democrats, a few unaffiliated faculty and, yep, zero Republicans. Nothing unusual there: just the usual academic understanding of diversity in action. What was a bit unusual was Professor Brandon's explanation of the preponderance of left-leaning faculty at Duke. "We try to hire the best, smartest people available," Professor Brandon told The Chronicle.
"If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire. Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too."
It is not often, we think, that academic arrogance makes quite so blatant a spectacle of itself. Everyone knows that professors as a group tend to think they are smarter and politically more virtuous than anyone outside the professorial flock, but generally they communicate this conviction indirectly, through snobbery and other forms of patronizing behavior. There is something almost touching about Professor Brandon's naked braggadocio. It is also nice that he manages to mangle John Stuart Mill and commit eighty-seven (some have detected ninety-four) logical mistakes in the space of his few sentences.
In our view, John Stuart Mill has a lot to answer for, but he never claimed that "stupid people are generally conservative." He would never have been so stupid. What he wrote, in a footnote discussing Disraeli in Considerations on Representative Government, was that the Conservative party in England was "the stupidest party." We trust that the chairman of the philosophy department at Duke University will appreciate the distinction.
In his letter complaining about the unpleasant response he had had to his comments, Professor Brandon announced that he would leave Mill out of his discussion. This was a wise decision. It might also be wise were he to take his own advice and "read more Mill." He might then avoid the atrocious logic of his opening sentence: "If, as John Stuart Mill said …" Exactly how, Professor, does it follow from what you say Mill said (only he didn't) that "then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire"? And how does Mill's "analysis," or whatever it is you think of as Mill's analysis—in fact, it is an unsupported contention thrown out for rhetorical effect—how does it explain "the power of the Republican party in our society"? How does it explain "the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia"? It doesn't. Of course, we know what you mean. You mean that you regard people who share your politics—which are the politics of 98 percent of the Duke faculty—as smarter than people who don't. But doesn't a professor of philosophy, albeit a professor of philosophy at Duke, have an elementary obligation to represent accurately a thinker he cites? And shouldn’t he make some effort to reason coherently and not simply emote?
Wonderfully put.
Athanasius on 03.11.04 @ 10:24 PM EST [link]
A fifth freedom
There's a new political force abroad in the land. The godless hordes–literally– have decided it's time to stand up for their rights:
The Godless Americans PAC grew out of the historic "Godless Americans March on Washington" (GAMOW) held on November 2, 2002 in Washington, DC.
For the first time in history, our nation's diverse community of Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and others who do not embrace religious creeds marched together for civil rights, the separation of state and church, and their full recognition as American citizens.
We demanded "a place at the table" in this great discussion known as democracy.
Newly born, and they've already got the niceties of grievance politics down. But one has to wonder: when exactly were atheists, et. al., denied their "place at the table"? When were they declared to be only semi-citizens? As far as I know, they have all the rights and privileges of every other American. One could argue that, given their small percentage of the general population, they are way over-represented in such influential institutions as the academy, the media, and the judiciary (which kowtows to their every whim and perceived slight). So what's the problem?
Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists and Chairwoman of the GAMOW Task Force noted: "Every other group in American history, from women suffragettes to blacks, gays and even the religious right has taken those first steps toward recognition by marching on our nation's capital. It's now our turn!"
Well, actually Jews, Unitarians, chimney sweeps and Wall Street daytraders have never marched on Washington demanding their rights, but give 'em time. Johnson sounds like a four-year-old: "He got to stick his finger in a light socket, so you have to let me do it, too!"
Looking out across the crowd assembled that day on the Mall in Washington, Johnson told the thousands of participants at GAMOW that she did not see isolated Atheists and other nonbelievers.
"I see a potential voting block. I see a new movement ready to assert its political and cultural influence in America."
Naderites of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your...what was it again?
The Godless Americans Political Action Committee was born. GAMPAC, like GAMOW, does not claim to represent every Atheist, Freethinker, Secular Humanist or other nonbeliever in the United States. It does, however, provide those who wish to participate a voice, a strategy, a vehicle in promoting the policies we embrace. It allows us to endorse political candidates who support our vision of a secular America, one where our right to freedom of and freedom From religion is valued and protected.
As I read the First Amendment, it doesn't say anything about "freedom From [sic] religion," only "freedom of religion." But then, I don't read the First through the special Urim and Thummim decoder glasses that folks like Johnson have. Which isn't to say that atheists, et. al., shouldn't have the right to worship themselves, only that they have no right to demand the total stripping of the public square of any and all religious expression. I don't have a right to demand never to be exposed to irreligion, and the reverse should obviously be true. Unfortunately, a lot of judges don't see it that way. So, the reason Johnson and her buddies need to organize again is what?
(Hat tip: Reepicheep)
Athanasius on 03.11.04 @ 11:17 AM EST [link]
