A little over a week ago I discussed (here) a recent piece by George Lakoff, treating it (too kindly, I fear) as an example of insufferable liberal pretensions to moral and intellectual superiority. I tacked on an UPDATE to note George Will making a similar point at Lakoff’s expense, and then a bit later another UPDATE showcasing some fevered responses of Bay Area liberals confirming my original point.
Now the Washington Post prints some letters in response to the Will column that echo their Bay Area brethren.
- Sean Willett, an associate prof. of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington, writes that
If academia is becoming more liberal, perhaps it is the free choice of individuals who feel the country would be better off with policy guided by science and study, rather than by faith and dogma. When conservatives discover the Enlightenment, perhaps more of them will find successful careers in academia.
- Salomeh Heyhani, a faculty member at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, believes that conservatives are “more … interested in climbing the corporate ladder while “liberal” academics pursue a tenure track at colleges.”
- Lisa Minnick, an assistant prof. of English at Western Michigan Univ., wishes “Will were as concerned about the shortage of women and people of color in tenured and tenure-track faculty positions at U.S. colleges as he is about a perceived shortage of Republicans in those positions.” She wonders if Will would support affirmative action for Republicans (I think not), but I wonder if she would oppose it. She also thinks Republicans are trying to establish a “one-party nation.”
These letters remind us — if anyone needed reminding — that a substantial swath of liberals today, at least in universities and similar institutions, really do believe that conservatives are repugnant, ignorant Neanderthals and that no reasonable person could be a Republican. There are, no doubt, some conservatives who entertain, and proclaim, similarly offensive stereotypes about liberals, but my impression is they are closer to the fringes while their liberal counterparts are both more numerous and closer to the liberal mainstream.
It’s difficult to engage in civil discourse with people who have already concluded that you are an uninformed pre-Enlightenment bigot.
UPDATE [4 December]
Joanne Jacobs adds some interesting comments and links.
Its very frustrating to have science scoffed, so I understand where the snideness of that comment came from. But until we stop letting fundamentalism make gains in debasing science in our education, you’re going to get comments targetted against the people who do seem to be rejecting one of the main tenents of the enlightenment: the scientific method. The ugly truth is that the teaching of faith and myth cloaked up in the language of science is not only-pre enlightement, but actually works to undermine it. Sorry.
I don’t know how they compare to others, but my complaint about conservatives and science is the stacking and vetting of scientific positions with political/ideological appointees. I thus think that the bush dismissal of science is just because they don’t want to be inconvenienced by facts that go against them, and its not because they are fundamentalist. Show em a study about doctors practicing expensive defensive medicice, and they cream their jeans.
I think Heyahani’s corporate comment is just fine. It may be a generalization, but its not a particularly invidious one to say that conservative values are more reflected in business than in the academy. In fact I think conservatives might agree with that. Of course, besides the academy, you also have to take into account the plethora of right wing think tanks, as well as the clergy.
The fact is that the GOP has one party control over 2, arguably 3 branches of government. So you can see how some people fear attacks on places that the right does not control, and see this as a consolidation from a position of dominance, rather than an attempt at balance.
It’s hard to engage in debate with people who jump to victimhood.
actus, I’d be happier taking all conservatives to be Neanderthal Luddites if the decidedly non-conservative residents of my county hadn’t just banned all genetically-modified crops from cultivation here.
It is interesting to me how quickly and loudly the liberals proclaim that if there are more liberals in academia it is because more liberals want to be there, but the same argument is not allowed to explain why there are more white males working as doctors than black women (for example).
Because the science on GMO is so conclusive.
I myself see a few problems with them — they’re being used to allow harsher pesticides, and intellectual property issues. Or you just don’t want to become a test tube.
‘It is interesting to me how quickly and loudly the liberals proclaim that if there are more liberals in academia it is because more liberals want to be there, but the same argument is not allowed to explain why there are more white males working as doctors than black women (for example).’
Part of the reason is that we can make rational arguments of a connection between political ideology and your career choice — including the values of the world you’re entering. It’s an argument based on generalizations, true, but rather benign ones.
There is no such argument that can be made for racial and sexual disparity being connected to doctoring.
And just like that, the sententious verdict is rendered.
dear actus, I’m sorry but the passus
“my complaint about conservatives and science is the stacking and vetting of scientific positions with political/ideological appointees. I thus think that the bush dismissal of science is just because they don’t want to be inconvenienced by facts that go against them, and its not because they are fundamentalist. Show em a study about doctors practicing expensive defensive medicice, and they cream their jeans.”
doesn’t make any sense to me.
Agreed, I’m probably not the sharpest tool in the shed, but, in general, my reading comprehension isn’t that bad.
So, please, if you don’t mind: what are you talking about?
Actually, the comparison to liberals/conservatives in academia vs. blacks/whites in medicine is an apt one. It’s just one that actus doesn’t particularly like. Or, finds offensive.
ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE FUNDAMENTALIST RELIGIOUS NUTS WHO REJECT SCIENCE COMPLETELY. ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS TEACH CREATIONISM, STONE HOMOSEXUALS, AND EXPLOIT WORKERS.
*turn sarcasm off*
It’s this simplistic, neanderthal-like view that is destroying political discourse in this country, and which, in my life experience, is actually driving more people to the right. No longer do liberals attempt to make reasoned arguments, but instead attack the other side as mere idiots. This is not to say that all liberals are this way, but a very large swath of them are, especially since the takeover of the Democratic Party by the Michael Moore/Noam Chomsky wing.
This hubris ignores all the wonderfully brilliant conservative intellectuals, who you are unlikely to read about in academia, among them: Milton Friedman, Leo Strauss, Adam Smith, Friedric Hayek, and Francis Fukayama. Friedman is my personal favorite, and probably the reason I swung from left to right.
Here’s a challenge for the liberals out their: go read Friedman’s book Free to Choose, and see if, even not convinced, you can at least find some intelligence and reasonableness behind conservatism.
That means you, actus.
Some of us like Friedman and Hayek but very definitely do not like Pat Robertson and anti-gay-marriage amendments. Conservatives are not the only non-“liberals”, you know, and those with libertarian leanings are no more in favor of moral-nanny-state conservative statism than they are of economic-nanny-state “liberal” (how I hate the misuse of that word- Hayek was a great liberal in the correct sense) statism. And the Republican Party is as much a representative of the former tendency as the Democratic Party is of the latter. A plague on both their houses. P.S. Perhaps you’ve forgotten that _The Road to Serfdom_ includes a chapter entitled “Why I Am Not a Conservative”.
Why in the world does anybody care about gay marriage? This issue affects such a teeny portion of the populace that it is laughably irrelevant.
One suspects that people focus on this issue solely for the purpose of the most abstract intellectual argument possible. Or conversely, people focus on this issue because, for reasons known to God alone, they believe that more people should be gay.
What in the world is it about this bizarre, laughable non-issue that interests our lame intellectuals?
For some of us it’s because we don’t think the whole question is any of your, or the government’s, business. Mind you, I don’t think the government should be in the position of providing pseudo-sanctification for straight marriages, either. Its proper role, as in other matters, is simply to be a neutral guarantor of such private contracts as the parties choose to enter into, with due regard as well for the rights of any children that result.
Well, I guess that’s an answer of a sort.
I stopped reading Andrew Sullivan precisely because he is consumed with the silliness of gay marriage. He is a particularly bad example of a spoiled, rich kid who seems obsessed with inventing victim status for himself. In fact, here in NYC, this seems to be the very reason for the existence of the gay marriage debate… rich, spoiled kids with a chip on their should trying to convince one another that they are victims of a society that hates them.
In fact, in my experience, even out in the boonies… nobody cares.
Let me put this another way.
Does the human rights crisis ever end? Throughout my life, every day has produced another group who maintains that, unless they get what they want, the most basic of human rights has been violated.
Can this viewpoint ever just be junked? Is there a point at which it becomes an absurdity? Can we declare that any further demands are simply childish posturing and foolish fabrication?
You mean, groups like the religious right with its laughable complaints of persecution?
Blunt:
The bush administration has been accused of appointing ideologes to positions where scientific, not political, decisions are made. They have also been accused of ‘ignoring’ science as a part of their ideology. I don’t think the latter is correct. I think they ignore things they don’t like simply because these things are inconvenient, not due to any anti-reason in their worldview
Dave Huber:
‘Actually, the comparison to liberals/conservatives in academia vs. blacks/whites in medicine is an apt one. It’s just one that actus doesn’t particularly like. Or, finds offensive.’
It’s actually pretty offensive. It’s reasonable to assume or conclude that there is something inherent in conservatism and liberalism that leads them to certain careers. Is there something inherent in being black or white that leads to certain careers?
Mr. LaBonne, I have to assume that you live in one of those hermetically sealed universes, like Manhattan or a college campus, where fantasies of an organized religious right seem to pre-occupy people. I go to church pretty frequently. Once again, the issues that seem so important to you seem to be non-existent in the religious community to which I belong.
The current political atmosphere seems so divorced from reality that I can barely connect. Gay marriage? How about public toilets for dogs? Or, perhaps, the rights of children to spank their parents? Perhaps all buildings should be erected upside down, in the interest of giving ground floor residents a shot at living in the penthouse.
Really, the leftover detritus of the dumb 60s seems to stick with us like burned food sticks to a pan.
Let me digest the dominant political theme among just about everybody I know… total disinterest. It’s a lot of fun to imagine great and dramatic political debate and controversy. Unfortunately, it’s mostly non-existent.
I work in law enforcement (forensic science) in Ohio. You’re as far off base about me as you are about most things. Not that that’s a surprise.
Steve — on the other hand, the majority of us don’t accept the right of the government to compel the legal recognition of and participation in that which we find morally abhorrant. If you want to have a private contract with an individual, fine — but don’t demand that employers offer you benefits on the same basis as real married couples, don’t demand the tax benefits available to real married couples, and don’t insist on being treated as a protected class under the law.
Oh, I see — you really want the government to provide more than a neutral guarantee. You want it to be the club with which your opponents will be beaten.
That’s exactly why it’s a huge mistake for the government to be involved in anybody’s marriage at all, except as contract referee. And your comment is exactly bass-ackward. Nobody is talking about forcing your church to bless anything it finds abhorrent. For the rest, other people’s living arrangements are none of your business and sure as hell none of the government’s. The state is not your friend; you’re deluded into thinking so only because people who think like you are currently influential in the governemt. But when the shoe is on the other foot?
Live your life according to your values and let others, so long as they don’t threaten your freedom, safety or property (none of which is even remoptely impacted by married gay couples), live theirs according to their values. That’s the only attitude that makes a free society possible.
‘If you want to have a private contract with an individual, fine — but don’t demand that employers offer you benefits on the same basis as real married couples, don’t demand the tax benefits available to real married couples, and don’t insist on being treated as a protected class under the law.’
The problem is that a lot of these gay amendments don’t allow this freedom to contract, by holding these contracts unenforceable.
actus,
re GMO, I realize that there are rational arguments against them; I was just pointing out that the Left isn’t uniformly in favor of scientific advances per se.
There is no such argument that can be made for racial and sexual disparity being connected to doctoring.
and then
It’s reasonable to assume or conclude that there is something inherent in conservatism and liberalism that leads [conservatives and liberals] to certain careers. Is there something inherent in being black or white that leads to certain careers?
Well, now. Is there something inherent in being of East Asian descent that leads you to become an accomplished classical violinist or cellist or pianist? Or is the incredible overrepresentation of Asian-American musicians in youth orchestras, conservatories, &c. some sort of racist plot? For that matter, there seem to be more male tuba players and percussionists, and more female flutists and harpists. Bigotry at work?
I know a very fine Baroque orchestra in which the string complement on a typical set is at least 80% female. Anti-male bias, anyone?
Ethnic and gender concentrations in particular professions are legion, and they aren’t all the products of bigotry. I don’t mean that there is no influence of racism or sexism, only that it’s not the only possible cause.
With regard to medicine, I would guess that the dearth of black physicians does have a lot to do with racism — not in bias in admissions to medical school, but further back, in the quality of schooling, and in the ability to pay for an extremely expensive education. Black net worth is much, much lower than white net worth, much more so than you’d guess from the income stats, so loans are harder to get. And many black children still go to lousy schools — a consequence of poverty much more than of racial or residential segregation.
Women in medicine is a more complicated problem. Is it completely impossible that a woman with a young child (or even the desire to have children) would think twice about entering medicine, or the law, or any other profession demanding 60+ hrs/wk?
I couldn’t have said it better than Michelle. And besides, actus, it is the Left that believes in the concept of group rights and attributes …but usually only in “good” ways. If it’s “bad” then it’s “racist.”
So, Mr. Labonne, let me try to put this another way that might allow you to connect with an actual human.
So, you argue and argue and argue over these arcane issues… and what happens?
Absolutely nothing.
What’s the government preventing you from doing?
So, you convince yourself that you’re right? What happens?
Absolutely nothing.
There is something fascinating in people’s obsessions with issues like gay marriage. There is nothing interesting or even sane in the issue.
Then why are you obsessed with discussing it?
I see.
Winning arguments is your reason for being.
Not hardly. I’m interested, among many other things, in trying to get people to understand that there lots of things (gay marriage being merely one example) about which the government and self-appointed moral arbiters should mind their own damn business. You strike me as somebody who, in areas that don’t happen to push your personal hot buttons, is quite capable of grasping this point, so I sincerely wish you would think harder about the fact that if you have the power to enforce your prejudices on others, others may in the future acquire similar power over you. Anyone who genuinely values freedom shouldn’t want to go there.
‘Ethnic and gender concentrations in particular professions are legion, and they aren’t all the products of bigotry. I don’t mean that there is no influence of racism or sexism, only that it’s not the only possible cause.’
Its not just bigotry that produces it, but the danger that stereotyping is how we’re explaining it.
actus,
Its not just bigotry that produces it, but the danger that stereotyping is how we’re explaining it.
I’m not sure I follow you. Are you saying that we’re in danger of confusing a (true) tendency of a particular ethnic group to concentrate on a particular profession (good) with a “stereotypical” perception that a particular ethnic group concentrates on a particular profession (bad)? How the heck do you differentiate those two?
Take, say, “Asian-Americans are math geeks.” True for all Asian-American individuals? Of course not. But if you look at the math and hard-science and engineering departments of the elite universities, you will find Asian-American students usually in the majority, often in the overwhelming majority. When I was studying mechanical engineering at UC/Berkeley, my classes were often 80-90% Asian.
Now, why is that? Is it because there is some Asian cabal keeping other students out? Or is it because this is a path culturally favored by Asian immigrants to the US and their children? If you rule the latter (“stereotypical”) explanation out of court, what have you got left?
John, of course, will say that this is a waste of time, that the obvious thing to do is to stop trying to “explain” racial differences in field of study altogether, and just make sure that there aren’t racial barriers to such study for any students, in any discipline. I’m inclined to agree.
‘Now, why is that? Is it because there is some Asian cabal keeping other students out? Or is it because this is a path culturally favored by Asian immigrants to the US and their children? If you rule the latter (“stereotypical”) explanation out of court, what have you got left?’
I think that its easier to say that conservatives/liberals have certain values, which lead to different sorts of careers, than it is to say that a given race or ethnic group has such values. I think that because there is a close tie to such ideology and values, such that its not a pernicious stereotyping — in some sense they’re the exact values that members of those groups take pride in.
However, I think it treads on offensive to say that members of an ethnic group have values, specially when we’re saying things such as ‘your values lead you to not be good at being doctors.’ Its partially because the ethnic group to values link is tenuous, and partially because these values which we are generalizing about might not be the sorts of things that people are proud about, and thus are in the domain of negative stereotypes.
“John, of course, will say that this is a waste of time, that the obvious thing to do is to stop trying to “explain” racial differences in field of study altogether, and just make sure that there aren’t racial barriers to such study for any students, in any discipline. I’m inclined to agree.” Count me in 100%, which is why I peruse this blog reguarly. The obsession with having proportional representation of every group one could possibly define, in every niche of society, is a form of mental illness. People like John who have the guts to say so are all too rare.
Steve Labonne,
I think you misunderstand mine, and a lot of other people’s use, of the word “conservative.” Which, to be fair, I hate labeling too. For what it is worth, I largely agree with you on matters of government it would seem. The libertarians are almost there on being completely right…although I would say only two of their stands do a disservice to their own philosophy – abortion and foreign policy.
actus,
I think that its easier to say that conservatives/liberals have certain values, which lead to different sorts of careers, than it is to say that a given race or ethnic group has such values. I think that because there is a close tie to such ideology and values, such that its not a pernicious stereotyping — in some sense they’re the exact values that members of those groups take pride in.
Well, the two “values-related” explanations of the dearth of conservatives in academia that John provides examples of above are
(1) conservatives are religious loonies for whom the very idea of pursuing knowledge for its own sake is unattractive; and
(2) conservatives are money-grubbing Philistines whose only interest is in getting rich as fast as possible.
I don’t think anyone can deny that these are “values” very few would take positive pride in. Add the third popular explanation (i.e., “conservatives are dumb as rocks”), and you have a pretty negative portrait of a large chunk of the country.
This is entirely apart from the fact that the “explanations” are nonsense, of course. It would be nice if the folks who oppose “dogma” and reason like this would remember occasionally who founded the first universities, and who taught in them. And there is (to say the least) a lot of valuable work outside academia that doesn’t make you rich either.
Sorry, but as a “conservative” (by academic standards, certainly) sometime UC/Berkeley grad student with a considerable scientific background, who left academia and is now pursuing a not-at-all-lucrative living in classical music performance and journalism, all three “explanations” do kind of piss me off.
However, I think it treads on offensive to say that members of an ethnic group have values, specially when we’re saying things such as ‘your values lead you to not be good at being doctors.’
Well, actually no one said that; the suggestion was rather that cultural influences of one kind or another might lead to some groups being over- and (therefore, by mathematical necessity) others under-represented among those pursuing medicine, or any other profession.
There is nothing discreditable about any ethnic group’s not aiming disporportionally at a particular profession, is there? And if one group concentrates on a particular area, in that area at least one other group will be under-represented, while the first group will obviously be under-represented in at least one other area. If, say, Jews are over-represented among lawyers, then they are under-represented in some other profession(s), while at least some other group is under-represented in law. Why this should be a problem I don’t see.
It’s partially because the ethnic group to values link is tenuous, and partially because these values which we are generalizing about might not be the sorts of things that people are proud about, and thus are in the domain of negative stereotypes.
Well, but it’s not really “values” in the moral sense; it’s priorities and familiar, historically-situated career paths. And, as I said just above, any group that pursues one or more professions disproportionally just has to be under-represented somewhere else. Nor are the reasons for not taking one path rather than another necessarily or even normally negative. I’ve often thought, for example, that for all the hand-wringing about the paucity of black instrumentalists in major symphony orchestras, the reason is obvious: there is a great and powerful indigenous African-American musical tradition, and it would be strange if musically-gifted African-American youth weren’t drawn to it more strongly than to the almost-all-white, almost-all-European classical literature. Why shouldn’t they be? (With vocal music it’s another matter; the great African-American classical singers, every one of them so far as I know, began by singing in church as children.)
‘I don’t think anyone can deny that these are “values” very few would take positive pride in’
I think those are negative exaggerrations of the positive values of faith, thrift, work
‘Well, but it’s not really “values” in the moral sense; it’s priorities and familiar, historically-situated career paths. ‘
Right, i haven’t been talking of ‘values’ like ‘exit poll values.’ I’ve been thinking of values like ‘what i find important’.
‘If, say, Jews are over-represented among lawyers, then they are under-represented in some other profession(s), while at least some other group is under-represented in law. Why this should be a problem I don’t see.’
The problem is that explanation that it has something to do with some stereotype we have of african americans or jews may
1. be covering for other, more
reprehensible, reasons for the disparity. And;
2. may be due to a false or negative stereotype.
I think that these dangers are more likely to be present in the case of race based disparities than in the case of ideologically based disparities.
actus,
I think those are negative exaggerations of the positive values of faith, thrift, work[.]
Not a bit of it. Embedded in the idea that the devoutly religious are disinclined to academia is the idea that faith and the pursuit of knowledge are somehow opposed to one another. Which is not only bull, but explicitly negative bull. “Thrift” doesn’t mean “making lots of money”; it means “spending as little money as possible.” No one is thriftier than a graduate student on a lean fellowship. And “work” — hard work — can be had as easily in academia as outside it, Lord knows. And the hardest work outside academia doesn’t necessarily pay that well, either.
The problem is that explanation that it has something to do with some stereotype we have of african americans or jews may
1. be covering for other, more
reprehensible, reasons for the disparity. And;
2. may be due to a false or negative stereotype.
I think that these dangers are more likely to be present in the case of race based disparities than in the case of ideologically based disparities.
Well, then: what would you have us do? Assume that every ethnic or gender disparity is bias-related until specifically demonstrated to be otherwise? Even when there are innumerable cases where that’s provably, factually false? And, conversely, assume that any disparity you can tie to beliefs, ideology, &c. is plausibly attributable to the mechanism you suggest, and therefore doesn’t need further investigation?
Understand: I do see what you’re getting at, and there’s some truth to it. There are some people who do want to make money on a bigger scale, and at an earlier age, than academia generally affords to all but a few “star professors.” There are some other people of conservative religious convictions who do find the relentless academic questioning — not of everything, but specifically and ferociously of their own beliefs — uncongenial. You can call both groups “conservative” if you like (though they overlap very little, if at all — here as elsewhere “conservative” generally means “not-liberal”), and you can show “values-related” reasons that each would be disinclined to life as a college professor.
But when it is obvious to anyone who’s set foot on an elite college campus in recent times that there is endemic and virulent hostility to “conservatives” of either stripe, don’t you think that might be borne in mind as a causal factor? Something, at minimum, to consider? I certainly learned rather rapidly not to get into political discussions with students from my own department; you have to interact with them socially over several years, after all. (Ironically, given the subject of this post, what finally “larned me” was saying something positive about George Will in the hearing of the other members of one of my seminars. Bad move.)
I don’t think the faithfull are disinclined to academia, i think they’re more inclined to clergy practice, which places more stock on the spiritual, which allows for advancement as one developes their spiritual service and practice. I also think i misstated the positive values that lead people to enter business for themselves. Sure grad students have to make do with little, and often have to be very entrepreneurial with the making of opportunities. But there is a way to positively state the value of the person who chooses to produce for sale and profit, rather than the one who is not capturing the surplus of their production in the same way.
What would I say we do about it? I would try not to say that business being conservative heavy is just like the shortage of african americans as doctors. Because there are differences.
actus,
Yes, of course, the devout are likely (at least I bloody well hope they are) to be over-represented among the clergy, and therefore under-represented among the non-clergy. But in demographic terms, that’s a fleabite.
[T]here is a way to positively state the value of the person who chooses to produce for sale and profit, rather than the one who is not capturing the surplus of their production in the same way.
Well, sure. [Though, um, “capturing the surplus of their production” . . . ? Am I just imagining things, or is that way of putting it just that wee bit ideologically laden?] There is a way to state it positively; but you will not find people like the folks John quotes in his original post doing it. Industry is important; people who start businesses are important; when the second-largest complaint (after Iraq) about the current government is that unemployment is too high, obviously people whose aims involve hiring lots of workers are important. But find me one person on the Left who argues it that way — who says that it’s a good thing that the entreprenurial types aren’t wasting their time in classrooms, but instead creating jobs — and I’ll buy you dinner. The argument is all the other way: these guys (and gals) care only about money. They are, in other words, greedy scum, with souls too coarse for academe.
What would I say we do about it? I would try not to say that business being conservative heavy is just like the shortage of african americans as doctors. Because there are differences.
Well, it was academe being conservative-light, not business conservative-heavy, and I’m not the one who said it. But you’re right: “there are differences.” There are differences everywhere, actus. There are and probably always will be, because we are never (please God) going to get rid of cultural subgroups, cultural communities, in a country as vast as this one; and therefore people’s goals in life are going to be conditioned, at least in part, by the cultural environment in which they were educated; and therefore you are going to see something other than neat, strict proportional representation of these subgroups in all walks of life. I think it behooves us to be alert to the possibility (and the present reality) of racial and sexual discrimination; I think also that we ought to be alert to the possibility of overt hostility to conservatives being a factor in their rarity on college campuses.
‘Though, um, “capturing the surplus of their production” . . . ? Am I just imagining things, or is that way of putting it just that wee bit ideologically laden?’
It was in my microecon textbook. ‘surplus’ is a mainstream, though not lay, term.
I think you miss the point when you say ‘good thing that people aren’t wasting their time in the classroom’. its about people having values and going into livelyhoods were they will be rewarded for those values. Go hear a leftist talk about small business.
‘I think also that we ought to be alert to the possibility of overt hostility to conservatives being a factor in their rarity on college campuses.’
I’ll be they last longer than the dreamy academics do in any business. :)
actus,
I think you miss the point when you say ‘good thing that people aren’t wasting their time in the classroom’. its about people having values and going into livelyhoods were they will be rewarded for those values. Go hear a leftist talk about small business.
Well, it does depend on the leftist, you know. Certainly most prefer small business to big business (apart from those blessedly few diehards who still want all business to be Biggest Business — i.e., government-owned and operated). But I have never had the impression that leftists in general respect small businessmen in general.
[about conservatives in academia:] I’ll bet they last longer than the dreamy academics do in any business. :)
If you mean “running any business,” you’re likely right in most cases. All the same, the ideological skew in academia does concern me, not least because of what it does to the conservatives who do stick around.
Briefly, a conservative at a campus like UC/Berkeley has two broad options: shut up, or be vocal — which when you’re outnumbered to that extent practically means being obnoxious. The polite conservatives learn quickly that their views are unwelcome and just avoid the subject as best they can. The impolite and the seriously zealous therefore have the field to themselves — which is why campus conservative papers are generally so strident, and conservative demonstrations (like the famous “affirmative action bake sales”) so deliberately provocative. The environment is such that only the wilfully pugnacious dare say anything at all. The result, obviously, is that the future liberal opinion-leaders watching the fray gather, not altogether irrationally given the sample they’re seeing, that conservatives are vicious nuts. This isn’t good for either side.
I had, for example, a brilliant classmate in math, physics, and engineering classes, who was given to arguing that, say, all homeless people ought to be locked up, preferably in the middle of nowhere. Then there was Max Boot, then the token Righty on the Daily Californian staff, now a Wall Street Journal columnist. He’s still conservative, obviously, but his tone has changed out of all recognition, judging by the bits I’ve seen quoted here and there from his recent columns (I don’t subscribe to the WSJ, and only subscribers can get at their content online). He was a very unpleasant pit bull of a writer at the Daily Cal, to the point where he viscerally turned me off points where I dispassionately agreed with him; now that he’s in a less embattled environment, he writes well and rationally.
‘ But I have never had the impression that leftists in general respect small businessmen in general.’
Whats your impression of left arguments against wal-mart, in general?
‘If you mean “running any business,” you’re likely right in most cases.’
I mean trying to excercise, or find reward, for their values in a business.
‘Briefly, a conservative at a campus like UC/Berkeley has two broad options: shut up, or be vocal’
Broad enough to encompass everything in between? I understand what its like to not be able to speak your mind — i’ve had bosses before, and I sure didn’t let them know what I thought about labor issues and class war, or the left groups that I volunteered with.
Like I said, try being a vocal
oops. that last line was an error.
actus,
Of course the Left hates Wal-Mart. It doesn’t follow that it’s necessarily nuts about the small businesses Wal-Mart displaces. For one thing, it’s a lot easier to unionize large companies than small ones. For another, the smallest businesses tend to be staffed by family and acquaintances of the owner, which means that . . . well, a letter to the editor run in the SF Chronicle about small grocery/liquor stores last week complained, among other things, that these stores don’t hire people from “the neighborhood.” No, that doesn’t mean that corner liquor stores pay enough that people commute long distances to work there; it’s code for “these are majority-black neighborhoods, and the store owners and staff aren’t black.” Of course the owners and staff do live there, but they’re not the local majority race.
[me:] ‘Briefly, a conservative at a campus like UC/Berkeley has two broad options: shut up, or be vocal’
[actus:] Broad enough to encompass everything in between? I understand what its like to not be able to speak your mind — i’ve had bosses before, and I sure didn’t let them know what I thought about labor issues and class war, or the left groups that I volunteered with.
Well, then, you understand the position of the campus conservative very well. And before you say it: yes, an outspoken conservative on campus ordinarily wouldn’t face anything worse than ostracism, while an outspoken labor agitator in a non-union workplace might not hold a job long. But a conservative grad student has to be looking towards employment, either inside the academy or out-. And if you want to teach at a university, being an outspoken conservative is not the sort of thing you want attached to your name when you go to a job interview — unless, of course, you’re so brilliant and newsworthy that your contrary views look like an asset to your possible employer. That does happen occasionally, but only a fool would bank on it.
‘For one thing, it’s a lot easier to unionize large companies than small ones.’
Uh, not like wal-mart, no.
‘But a conservative grad student has to be looking towards employment, either inside the academy or out-. And if you want to teach at a university, being an outspoken conservative is not the sort of thing you want attached to your name when you go to a job interview