Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
Liberal Bias is A-OK
By J.D. Porter
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 9, 2007
Here at Columbia, as at most top universities, we enjoy belittling conservative beliefs. Even the professors are in on it, and conservatives often find their beliefs directly challenged by academic trickery, like thinking about things, and facts. But shouldn’t good pedagogy incorporate all sides of an issue? No, it should not. If conservativism is absent from the University, it’s because it hasn’t earned its way in.
The fundamental problem here is that good intellectual exercise of any kind doesn’t mean including all the viewpoints available; it means including the good viewpoints. When I get a headache, I don’t equally weigh the taking aspirin option with the putting leeches on my head option even though many people, including several major founding fathers, have been adamantly pro head-leech. Similarly, when a news program has scientists on to talk about global warming, it doesn’t make sense to invite one who believes in it and one who doesn’t. It makes sense to invite two good scientists, even though they will probably agree. I don’t care about “unbiased” reporting; I want accurate reporting. I also want good scholarship, whether or not it has a balanced political perspective. If your idea gets left out, it’s your fault for having a dumb idea.
The obvious question, of course, is who decides which opinions are good. It’s a tricky issue that requires a lot of thought, but one place to start might be with people who know what they’re talking about. We all know this on some level, but we’re bad at applying it to politics. If you want to know what’s wrong with your car, for example, you don’t poll your neighbors; you ask a mechanic. If most of your neighbors disagree with the mechanic, you ignore them, even if they quote the Bible. For the same reason, it doesn’t really matter what most of the country thinks about global warming or evolution, because the people who know actual facts about those things have pretty much formed a consensus. Yes, you can dig up a scientist who disagrees, just like the tobacco industry has found doctors who think Marlboros make fun Halloween treats, but consensus among experts is really what matters here.
Of course, the experts can be wrong. For example, the New York Times recently reported that scientists in general have basically been wrong about what makes a healthy diet for about a half century. But at least with science there’s a correction mechanism of some kind, namely other science. Unlike, say, conservativism, science doesn’t exist to endorse past beliefs. If scientists could prove that the Earth has secretly been flat all these years, they would, and the other scientists, instead of taking it as a personal affront, would probably give them a Nobel prize.
The same holds for academia. A sociology professor isn’t going to get ahead just by finding a way to blame America first. She’s going to have to do some sociology stuff, which will probably be judged on the quality of the scholarship rather than the viewpoint espoused. Just as there is no organization called Science that holds secret meetings to determine which part of Christianity is going down next, there is no cabal of academics trying to keep campuses liberal, as in, “You barely seem to grasp the difference between supply and demand, but you say you ‘really like Marx,’ so you’re our new economics professor.”
In reality, conservatives ought to appreciate academia, because it’s a vicious market system. Professors have absurdly specific training in tiny career fields. A guy who spends years writing a dissertation on the importance of beads to indigenous tribes in Brazil really wants the world’s other bead expert to fail. If he doesn’t get tenure, there’s a good chance he won’t find a decent job anywhere else ever. He doesn’t care whether bead-man number two is a Republican; he could be left of Castro and the first guy would still spend days writing scathing articles blasting his shoddy bead analysis.
Similarly, Columbia isn’t going to refuse to hire a conservative who has done prominent work, because rich people like prominence, and we at Columbia need rich people to send us their progeny. You could argue that conservative professors have a more difficult time becoming prominent, but if most professors are liberal, then a conservative doing convincing research or writing influential journal articles would probably just be more conspicuous. You might also argue that the liberal environment at Columbia makes conservatives less inclined to work here, but that just sounds like a way of saying that conservatives are pansies who can’t handle disagreement, which seems unfair to me.
Speaking pragmatically, it doesn’t really matter why campuses are liberal, because we don’t have a way to change that. Theoretically, schools could start hiring professors based on their political beliefs, but that’s uncomfortably like totalitarianism, or, even worse, some kind of affirmative action. Of course, if academia is truly a marketplace, and there are truly students interested in conservative education, then we ought to see the emergence of conservative universities. So far we have at least one. It’s called Liberty University, and it is to academia what Larry the Cable Guy is to the performing arts.
If conservatives truly feel under-represented in the academy, their only option is to do better work. They shouldn’t allow themselves to be coddled by some sort of regulatory system looking out for their welfare. It’s a mistake, however, to say that we even need more conservative voices at Columbia. We need good scholarship and good pedagogy, and not lip service to an ideology just because it’s popular. That may mean we hire conservatives, or, if history is any indication, it more likely won’t. If we judge professors purely on their work, however, conservativism will have the place in academia that it deserves.
J.D. Porter is a Columbia College senior majoring in English.
The Lion’s Roar runs alternate Fridays.
Specopinion@columbia.edu
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 48)
Post a Comment
-->
I find a free exchange of ideas difficult in a climate of political dualism. Those who espouse a popular view on either side of the political see-saw find support on their side and that tends to further the strength of the view and rightly so. Those on the opposing side are made to scramble to catch up or build a stronger case which tends to fall short and rightly so. I have noticed that some listen and when sense is made, comments ensue. When sense is lacking, no argument is found and no emotional affront is taken although loss of splendidness occurs. In this case, I have already commented.
Do students at Columbia really go around addressing each other like this? This whole page - comments and all - is a caricature. It's too brilliant to be anything less than a calculated parody.
WAYNE '10
The biggest problem with institutions of higher learning in this country is that they are very tight knit and biased enterprises. The last thing a dean of school wants to do is place a conservative thinking intellectual (yes, there are a great many out there, in the work force doing what the liberal professors have never done, it's called real world work). And there are more conservative minded schools in this country than just one. Try expanding your mind a little bit and learn a bit more about the country in which you live and the world for that matter. The world does not revolve around the liberal bile that you hold so dear. And if after you graduate you can't make it in the real world, I'm sure you can get a job corrupting more young minds working at Columbia.
Ignore these people. It was very well written and an excellent window into your own personal values and views. Upon reading this is is very clear that you are a man that knows his own personal biases and knows how to defend them. Good for you.
I'm a about as far to the left as one can get. However i recommend you do some research on American conservatism. It would help you make your material solid and harder to debate against. You would not have to base your essays off preconceived notions.
Again, It is wonderful to to hear from a man with such wit and intelligence. Well done.
I applaud the message here, and I do think that on many fronts you are right, but then again on many fronts you are naive. Take a look, for one, at the psychiatry community. The fact that most psychiatrists, scientists with degrees who have written theses and studied and experimented, will prescribe Adderall to a patient upon simply learning that they were "hyperactive as a child." Hell I was prescribed as having ADHD, a more severe version of ADD. I took the medicine for a month before I started selling it. I got busted and haven't taken it since, and I've actually been quite successful since then. Or take the so-called beach-bum that recently came up with probably the most important theory of physics since Einstein. He's been met with mostly derision from his contemporaries n the physics community. They claim to be skeptical because he's a beach-bum, but in reality he's simplified physics while they've been coming up with the most convoluted, bizarre and incomprehensible theories. They're just mad that he gets it and they don't.
Science is all about politics. Every scientific breakthrough is met with scorn by all the scientists who have vested interests in being right, or rather, in everyone else being wrong.
People are people, no matter how you educate them.
Beyond that, though, you're absolutely right. Stupidity, no matter how popular it is, has no place at any table.
Everyone can spout off 'liberal' and 'conservative' all they want, but its not black and white. There is more to it than that.
This article is dead on. Well said.
As a science major I appreciate your implied nobility towards the method of thought. However, you've made a few errors in your understanding of how it works at universities. Just as in all other things, politics plays a huge role. If someone came up with proof that the world was flat, the supposedly "liberal" peer community would bury it so deep your grandchildren might never know about it, and the person who made the discovery would be ridiculed, lose their grant money, and be quietly pushed aside into a life of mediocrity. In purely political terms, liberals are often also guilty of being extremely intolerant of different beliefs. In practical terms I treat liberal professors the way I treat evangelical friends; no point in wasting time reasoning with them.
Now back to politics in science. Global warming is a good example. I've been in contact with professors who were cutting edge in this field, and friends with their grad students (the people actually doing the research), and any data that goes against the current mainstream opinion (and believe me there's actually a great deal of data that does just that) is never published. It's just sort of hushed up. Usually by the professors themselves because either, a) they don't want to mess up their pet theory, b) they don't want to be ridiculed by the establishment, or, c) are afraid of losing funding from politically motivated groups.
The simple truth of the matter is, conservatives (not just politically, but social and scientifically) are usually right, on a case by case bias, but liberals (same parameters) are occasionally right, and this leads to progress. This makes perfect sense on reflection. The important thing is that a balance between the two outlooks tends to keep things moving along well, but also makes sure that somebody is there saying, "Wait, let's not get carried away here until we really prove it."
Science isn't like a test, where all that matters is the right answer. It's sometimes downright dangerous to jump to the right answer using the wrong hypothesis. Why and how matter more than what. What if we misunderstand or ignore some key piece of global warming data and then try to fix or mediate global warming? We would almost certainly make things work. I know for a fact that some test field runs indicate that seeding the Antarctic with iron would lower global temperatures almost an order of magnitude more than the mainstream reports indicate, but I sure haven't seen that data floated around. We need to understand what's going on, really going on, before we can move forward. Any sort of bias, ANY (got it?), is bad for science if it isn't at least balanced.
Now, on final note, this one personal opinion rather than experience as it has been up until this point, the single most annoying thing about an atmosphere that's too liberal or conservative is that people say things that agree with the mainstream there, and everyone just agrees. There's no challenge, no critical review. What this results in are people who have no rational basis for it, say, English majors, assuming they have authority to make broad and very strong statements in regards to say, global warming, when they don't have sufficient knowledge to even understand the math used to analyze the data, let alone the science behind it, or even make such comment regarding, just to pick another random example, the inner workings of the scientific community, even though they've never even worked in a lab. Although it is a small mercy when they at least write well enough that their misconceptions are not presented in a manner which is painful to read.
This article blows.
Mr. Porter,
Your argument is founded in large part on the assumption that the marketplace for ideas is a perfectly competitive one, and thus, you proceed to affirm that conservative views have been eliminated from intellectual hubs such as Columbia via a simple 'survival of the fittest' mechanism.
However, you neglect to consider the possibility that though a perfectly competitive marketplace for ideas may breed only the most robust of ideas, Columbia University - like many of its sister institutions- is imperfectly competitive, ideologically speaking. The ideas market is monopolized by the controlling ideology, and thus barriers to entry are steep, to say the least. Academic circles are very tight nit, exclusive, and often strongly biased.
It follows that the premise underlying your argument, though true in pure cases of free idea markets (like parts of the internet), is not applicable to the case you cite, and hence does not support the stance you attempt to defend.
Liberal ideas are only in school because they don't know the real world! when you grow up and eat what honest hard working farmers make and which engineers and real working men make then maybe you will not be liberal hmmmm? What I think is that education is for jackasses, and I'm not alone! Every conservative thinks that actually!
Wow.
...what?
"I think education is for jackasses."
It shows.
Yeah, too bad conservatives are willing to sacrifice the hard working farmers to some immoral corporation that can make a lower quality product for exponential income.
Seriously. Conservatives haven't supported farmers in so many years, but these dumb commenters don't seem to realize that.
Thank you for helping me decide to go attend any place for my MBA, but Columbia. I prefer a school not occupied by a gomeral.
This is quite possibly the biggest peice of sh*t I've ever read. I can't believe JD will be graduating with a degree in English from such a fine University. Shameful! I know it's an opinion peice, but maybe the Spec should prequalify the people contributing to its publication so we don't have to read garbage from idiots!
I wonder how many farmers even know where Columbia is? I think they are smarter than you. You cannot eat intellectual debate.
It is easy to be a liberal so long as mommy and daddy are paying your bills. Oh and your profs are so liberal except when it comes to their own salaries and benefits. Are many of them making middle class wages?????
Conservatism and science are not mutually exclusive. How are you defining conservatism? I am relatively certain that many, maybe even most conservatives do believe in science and its benefits. Using the George Bush and Religious Right's views are not representative of conservatives, only the vocal minority in power now. Your points about stupid questions not being worthy of debate is also ridiculous. From Kindergarten on, I was drilled in the "There are no stupid questions" school philosophy; only through answering stupid questions can the people posing them be converted to the "correct" thinking, however Orwellian that sounds.
The reason all of this forced "diversity" doesn't work is because, generally speaking, people like being with their own kind. If the opposite was true, then "diversity" and "multiculturalism" would not have to be forced, the coming-together of the races would just happen naturally. Which it doesn't do.
I haven't seen any specific enumerations of what 'conservative ideas' have been so unfairly treated yet so obviously have merit. If anyone has a _specific_ complaint, let's hear it.
Someone's already brought up "free markets, financial probity in politics, limited and balanced government, and national defense."
If you're complaining about a lack of specificity, you should talk to J. D. Porter, who cites a) global warming and b) the flat earth in his vacuous definition of conservatism, conveniently ignoring conservative intellectual thought from people like Philip Rieff or, hell, even Andrew Sullivan.
A friend of mine just informed me that, in the Columbia University admissions pamphlet describing CC admissions criteria, the word 'intelligence' appears nowhere.
I wish that were surprising.
Oh no! Not a PAMPHLET without a certain word! You can put the word 'intelligence' in a pamphlet as many times as you want, it doesn't mean anything.
But, "diversity" and "ethnic" and "multiculturalism" appear everywhere, right?!
The above are killing the United States.
Rebecca and others:
Your criticisms are fair enough. My primary reason for writing that way was to distance myself from people who either write disturbing nonsense ("J.D. Porter needs a healthy dose of AIDS.") or put their comments entirely in capital letters. Also, I was in a bad mood and feeling sarcastic when I wrote my response. Allow me, then, to summarize my points frankly and straight-forwardly:
-Save for in his own twisted world where liberals are free from the rules of intellectual discourse, Mr. Porter's argument fails on a basic logical level. This is due to the fact that he does not prove in his article the principal claim which either makes or breaks his case: that is, that conservatives lack intellectual credibility and are therefore undeserving of consideration.
-Mr. Porter's examples which aim at discrediting conservatism (e.g. global warming, the Earth's shape) are so irrelevant to the primary differences between "liberals" and "conservatives" as to be almost ridiculous. Apparently, he thinks he can persuade us with marginalia.
-Furthermore, his definition of conservative, while true to the essence of the word's meaning, does not reflect the issues which are important to many modern American conservatives. His discrediting of conservatism on this basis is therefore mere hand-waving. (As proof of this, consider the massive differences between European "conservatives" and American "conservatives"; though they share a name, these people clearly do not belong to any monolithic philosophy.)
I hope that, through this response, I have regained some credibility in your eyes. I sincerely do not want to be branded as a crank, and I apologize if my sarcastic tone in the previous comment turned some people off.
Joseph
P.S.- To the anonymous posters. I am by no means a "baby pre-politician"; I am pre-med, although I happen to have a strong interest in history. And, while I admit that my previous post was not necessarily "civil," I object to the idea that it was not coherent. Oh, and I don't use a thesaurus, thank you very much.
Porter doesn't have critics. He makes no point worthy of criticism. He rather inspires diarrheal ennui.
why can't Porter's critics make coherent civil arguments? simple question.
Boy do we have some shabby baby pre-politicians here! Obfuscation and verbiage with no logic or coherence. What's another word for thesauarus?
Dear Mr. Villarin,
While I feel compelled to concede that you made a fair number of valid and reasonable arguments, I find myself nevertheless rather discomfited by your overwrought and unnecessarily verbose diction. I cannot help but feel that although your claim is really quite reasonable and your tone delightfully condescending, the sheer pretentiousness of your response to Mr. Porter's opinion piece quite overshadows those intellectual merits which your electronic epistle possesses. If you had perhaps averred your claims in a style less heavy-handed and ostentatious, the impact of your words would have been manifestly augmented. Indubitably you would have sounded the very paragon of an educated young man. In virtue of your recent comments, however, you come across as something of an agitated schoolboy experimenting with a new thesaurus. In the future if you would be so kind as to phrase your criticisms in a manner more suited to a casual public forum of the twenty-first century, I would be most appreciative - as would be, I surmise, the vast majority of the online community.
Affectionately yours,
Rebecca Choudhury, CC '11
Post new comment