I’m glad I went to college in the ‘70’s. We were able to have political discussions, but outside the classroom. My major was in the sciences and I don’t remember anything political in the classroom. Just focus on the science.
This, and other posts of yours, contribute to reducing the trust in institutions, in line with the now prevalent anti-establishment narratives that dominate the public discourse. As in other posts, your deliver provocative statements, generalizations and extrapolations that shed little insights or provide evidence for underlying problems, their manifestations, or solutions - which prevents both understanding what's wrong, and fixing it (and no, showing rafts of data on political leanings of faculty doesn't say much in itself...nor do your own personal experiences, which I assume you'll use as 'evidence' in later posts). It would help if THB, for its purported mission's sake, would aim for more rigor. Otherwise it risks falling into the same "ideological narrowing" (albeit an anti-establishment one) lamented in the post.
What is your counter argument for what is "wrong" with universities?
And far from being "anti-establishment" (which means?) my robust defense of the mission of traditional universities is about as establishment as it gets.
I look forward to an exchange and appreciate your engagement.
I don't have any reason to doubt the veracity of the data. But the stats on voting are no evidence of politicization - correlation is not causation. --> my critique wrt extrapolations.
E.g. "The lack of diversity among professors is problematic for both education and research, ostensibly the overriding purposes of universities."
Unclear why political diversity would play a role in research/education in quantum physics, cell biology, material science, machine learning theory etc, basically a large body of universities' research departments --> my critique wrt generalization.
E.g. "Partisan professors", "Politicisation of the American University", "Weaponization of peer review" are provocative titles that give an impression of systemic, large-scale issue --> my critique wrt provocative (because of their all-encompassing nature) statements, which may contribute to erosion of trust in the scientific institutions.
Unsure why I'd need a counter-argument for what is wrong with universities (I didn't write an opinion post to need defending arguments in), though I certainly think they're far from perfect (as is the academia-funding-publishing-media-policy ecosystem and the interplay between the institutions).
Wrt to the anti-establishment discourse, by that I mean the global (in the 'West') trend of increased distrust in institutions, including academia, and the raised voices to 'uproot ideological capture by elites' from power, including over here in Europe, where the mere voting patterns of employees in institutions is taken as 'evidence' for ideological capture, hence my comment.
"Unclear why political diversity would play a role in research/education in quantum physics, cell biology, material science, machine learning theory etc, basically a large body of universities' research departments"
-->In some case this critique is correct. However, it turns out that politics does show up in such courses. In two weeks I'll have some specific examples.
-->"give an impression of systemic, large-scale issue"
I do indeed. And it is.
-->"prevents both understanding what's wrong, and fixing it"
Sorry, I took this to mean you had an alternative diagnosis
-->"the global (in the 'West') trend of increased distrust in institutions, including academia"
Yes, this is indeed a problem. Here in the US one element of the loss of trust in universities is that they have become pathologically politicized, at least according to the self-reported explanations of those surveyed who report a loss of trust (see Part 1). Universities are important. They should work for everyone.
The responses do illustrate the lack of rigor I critiqued:
"-->In some case this critique is correct. However, it turns out that politics does show up in such courses. In two weeks I'll have some specific examples."
1) anecdotal evidence and individual examples does not get one very far in neither defining, let alone understanding complex problems, and even less so in demonstrating systemic cause-and-effects.
"I do indeed. And it is."
2) "And it is." is not an argument, more of an authority-style shut-down of debate
"Sorry, I took this to mean you had an alternative diagnosis"
3) it's again unclear why I have to put forward an alternative diagnosis - my critique of your own being non-rigorous can still be valid
"Yes, this is indeed a problem. Here in the US one element of the loss of trust in universities is that they have become pathologically politicized, at least according to the self-reported explanations of those surveyed who report a loss of trust (see Part 1). Universities are important. They should work for everyone."
4) so if I understand you correctly, because self-reported lack of trust in institutions, these institutions either: a) inherently have caused this loss of trust (the flaws/limitations of this argument should be self-evident), or b) we should ignore the causes and still reform these institutions because they "they should work for everyone" - the implications for academic freedom should also be self-evident.
5) This line of thinking (people have lost trust ergo the institutions have done something to lose it so let's reform them) risks missing the cause of the loss of trust, and in focusing solely on the angle you're taking not only risking not solving potential deeper problems, but also in the reforming institutions do more damage then it solves.
To be clear - I don't doubt that politicization is a real thing at some universities/departments/disciplines, I question the scale and their systemic implications across disciplinary and institutional boundaries, as well as national boundaries, given the similar trends across the 'West', which begs the question whether there are other important drivers for the lack of trust e.g. globalisation backlash, wealth inequality, pandemic fallout, 'culture wars', social media etc. (that may also amplify whatever legitimate grievances there are to be had about politicization in self-reports.)
This is much worse than I anticipated. As we pride ourselves with living in free, democratic and diverse communities (be it on campus or otherwhere) the hollowness and hypocrisy of that claim is becoming increasingly clear. Are we approaching a "westernized autocracy" with the ominous Orwellian society looming in the horizon?
Roger, I read a case history ten or 15 years ago, of a university interviewing candidates for an associate prof of biology position. At one point the hiring committee discusses a well-qualified candidate with good research and teaching credentials. Then one of the committee says, "I can't see him fitting in here with his attitude toward school busing." The candidate was rejected even though his opinions about school busing had nothing to do with his expertise as a biologist. Repeat this consistently for 20 or 30 years and we have to expect that all the voices in that university will be singing from the same sheet music, with no sharps, flats or solo improvisation. So without diversity of thought on the hiring committees, there is no hope of fixing this problem.
It looks like there was a backlash against the bias that college students experience in academia in the recent election. A Tufts analysis of polls shows that 56% of Gen Z men voted for Trump. Maybe students are rejecting the institutional bias that saddled them with high debt for an educational experience of questionable intellectual value, and little or no practical value.
It would be interesting to see what college grads think of their professors and institutions several years after graduation. The recent wave of violent anti-Semitic protests on campuses will probably spark a larger backlash among alumni and revulsion from the general population.
There is a lot of hate under the surface in academia that is being exposed.
When you get to the final (part 5, I believe),it would be constructive to analyze the effects of the politicization of publication and grant processes. I know I've harped on this incessantly, but without corrections in these two pillars of the educational system, I don't see how a balanced professor class could be maintained absent a complete rethinking of publish or perish. I'm not totally convinced who drove whom into the ditch, but each of the three pillars must be righted for the institution of education to survive under the current model.
Nothing like The Honest Broker to shine a brighter light on what is the brain washing of our youth and their politicalization If you can’t turn the country into Marxist at the ballot box do it through the education system. I have to laugh when the left says 25 Nobel prize economists Trump’s policies are inflationary. Some states are battling back like Florida by insisting on more balance or the state money dries up. We need the same discipline at the national level to turn this around. Perhaps alumni should think about the checks they write as well.
"This ideological narrowing is dangerous not just for the creation of new knowledge and research, but also because it does a disservice to the very people we professors are trying to educate and lift upward
Correction - professors by and large are not even trying to educate and uplift, they are merely trying to indoctrinate. Indoctrination is a process of narrowing the mind whereas education is a process of broadening it. I suspect that students typically graduate with a more narrowly defined worldview and less ability to consider other viewpoints than they had as freshmen. Universities are better described nowadays as uneducation establishments.
I don't think it is indoctrination, but something far more subtle. I'll discuss this more in the next two weeks, but my experiences are that most faculty are well meaning and deeply believe that they are conveying a singular "truth" that happens to be aligned with their politics and most everyone they encounter . . .
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Those that can't and teach tend to be malcontents with a chip on their shoulder because they can't. It has always been that way... the kids are stained by their professors but then MOST used to clear it up after launching into a real life of productive doing.
Two things have happened to break the process. One - many more kids are going to college. Two - fewer are launching into a real life of productive doing.
You note that .. Writing in 2017, Samuel Abrams characterized why ideological uniformity can be problematic for teaching and research. Does this refer to uniformity in terms of a uniform bias in one political direction? So ... for research, at least in the science disciplines, is Abrams saying that research is becoming increasingly less rigorous and less ideologically neutral?
I am struggling to read Chris Rufo's "America's Cultural Revolution" which covers some the same ground. It is one the most difficult books I have read in years, not because of the writing or the complexity of the ideas, but because of all the horses**t the man had to wade through to tell the story. The vast majority of it is flowing out from universities across the West. Thanks for continuing to draw attention to it. My son just failed to get a job at a Canadian post-secondary institution. I couldn't be more pleased.
I’m glad I went to college in the ‘70’s. We were able to have political discussions, but outside the classroom. My major was in the sciences and I don’t remember anything political in the classroom. Just focus on the science.
I guess if you asked the average participant in the university environment what is wrong they would say that :-
Teaching opinions have become badly polarized with sometimes not all sides of the argument on the subject being taught or considered... (politicised)
The selection for teaching jobs and student participants is not purely driven by meritocracy
Funding has driven conclusions not the true facts.
Faculty is being overridden by administration.
Many of the courses do not result in solid use to the economy
The internationalization of the learning institutions means they serve the citizens far less.
Students are using so called free speech to be motivated by indoctrination.
Look…most of these are easy to fix and the frustration is that they are not getting fixed, so it’s a clear case of bad institutionalism.
This, and other posts of yours, contribute to reducing the trust in institutions, in line with the now prevalent anti-establishment narratives that dominate the public discourse. As in other posts, your deliver provocative statements, generalizations and extrapolations that shed little insights or provide evidence for underlying problems, their manifestations, or solutions - which prevents both understanding what's wrong, and fixing it (and no, showing rafts of data on political leanings of faculty doesn't say much in itself...nor do your own personal experiences, which I assume you'll use as 'evidence' in later posts). It would help if THB, for its purported mission's sake, would aim for more rigor. Otherwise it risks falling into the same "ideological narrowing" (albeit an anti-establishment one) lamented in the post.
DC
Thanks I appreciate your perspective
This reads more like a complaint than a critique
Are the data wrong? If so, how?
Are the arguments flawed? If so, how?
What is your counter argument for what is "wrong" with universities?
And far from being "anti-establishment" (which means?) my robust defense of the mission of traditional universities is about as establishment as it gets.
I look forward to an exchange and appreciate your engagement.
Thanks Roger.
I don't have any reason to doubt the veracity of the data. But the stats on voting are no evidence of politicization - correlation is not causation. --> my critique wrt extrapolations.
E.g. "The lack of diversity among professors is problematic for both education and research, ostensibly the overriding purposes of universities."
Unclear why political diversity would play a role in research/education in quantum physics, cell biology, material science, machine learning theory etc, basically a large body of universities' research departments --> my critique wrt generalization.
E.g. "Partisan professors", "Politicisation of the American University", "Weaponization of peer review" are provocative titles that give an impression of systemic, large-scale issue --> my critique wrt provocative (because of their all-encompassing nature) statements, which may contribute to erosion of trust in the scientific institutions.
Unsure why I'd need a counter-argument for what is wrong with universities (I didn't write an opinion post to need defending arguments in), though I certainly think they're far from perfect (as is the academia-funding-publishing-media-policy ecosystem and the interplay between the institutions).
Wrt to the anti-establishment discourse, by that I mean the global (in the 'West') trend of increased distrust in institutions, including academia, and the raised voices to 'uproot ideological capture by elites' from power, including over here in Europe, where the mere voting patterns of employees in institutions is taken as 'evidence' for ideological capture, hence my comment.
Some replies:
"Unclear why political diversity would play a role in research/education in quantum physics, cell biology, material science, machine learning theory etc, basically a large body of universities' research departments"
-->In some case this critique is correct. However, it turns out that politics does show up in such courses. In two weeks I'll have some specific examples.
-->"give an impression of systemic, large-scale issue"
I do indeed. And it is.
-->"prevents both understanding what's wrong, and fixing it"
Sorry, I took this to mean you had an alternative diagnosis
-->"the global (in the 'West') trend of increased distrust in institutions, including academia"
Yes, this is indeed a problem. Here in the US one element of the loss of trust in universities is that they have become pathologically politicized, at least according to the self-reported explanations of those surveyed who report a loss of trust (see Part 1). Universities are important. They should work for everyone.
The responses do illustrate the lack of rigor I critiqued:
"-->In some case this critique is correct. However, it turns out that politics does show up in such courses. In two weeks I'll have some specific examples."
1) anecdotal evidence and individual examples does not get one very far in neither defining, let alone understanding complex problems, and even less so in demonstrating systemic cause-and-effects.
"I do indeed. And it is."
2) "And it is." is not an argument, more of an authority-style shut-down of debate
"Sorry, I took this to mean you had an alternative diagnosis"
3) it's again unclear why I have to put forward an alternative diagnosis - my critique of your own being non-rigorous can still be valid
"Yes, this is indeed a problem. Here in the US one element of the loss of trust in universities is that they have become pathologically politicized, at least according to the self-reported explanations of those surveyed who report a loss of trust (see Part 1). Universities are important. They should work for everyone."
4) so if I understand you correctly, because self-reported lack of trust in institutions, these institutions either: a) inherently have caused this loss of trust (the flaws/limitations of this argument should be self-evident), or b) we should ignore the causes and still reform these institutions because they "they should work for everyone" - the implications for academic freedom should also be self-evident.
5) This line of thinking (people have lost trust ergo the institutions have done something to lose it so let's reform them) risks missing the cause of the loss of trust, and in focusing solely on the angle you're taking not only risking not solving potential deeper problems, but also in the reforming institutions do more damage then it solves.
To be clear - I don't doubt that politicization is a real thing at some universities/departments/disciplines, I question the scale and their systemic implications across disciplinary and institutional boundaries, as well as national boundaries, given the similar trends across the 'West', which begs the question whether there are other important drivers for the lack of trust e.g. globalisation backlash, wealth inequality, pandemic fallout, 'culture wars', social media etc. (that may also amplify whatever legitimate grievances there are to be had about politicization in self-reports.)
I guess if you asked the average participant in the university environment what is wrong they would say that :-
Teaching opinions have become badly polarized with sometimes not all sides of the argument on the subject being taught or considered... (politicised)
The selection for teaching jobs and student participants is not purely driven by meritocracy
Funding has driven conclusions not the true facts.
Faculty is being overridden by administration.
Many of the courses do not result in solid use to the economy
The internationalization of the learning institutions means they serve the citizens far less.
Students are using so called free speech to be motivated by indoctrination.
Look…most of these are easy to fix and the frustration is that they are not getting fixed, so it’s a clear case of bad institutionalism.
Hi Roger, are you aware of any such data for Germany or Europe?
Hi Volker ... I will do a more rigorous search soon, and this may be worth a full post. Meantime, this paper comes immediately to mind: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12866
Thanks! I would appreciate a full post on this.
This is much worse than I anticipated. As we pride ourselves with living in free, democratic and diverse communities (be it on campus or otherwhere) the hollowness and hypocrisy of that claim is becoming increasingly clear. Are we approaching a "westernized autocracy" with the ominous Orwellian society looming in the horizon?
Defund until diversity is achieved, let them live off donations.
Roger, I read a case history ten or 15 years ago, of a university interviewing candidates for an associate prof of biology position. At one point the hiring committee discusses a well-qualified candidate with good research and teaching credentials. Then one of the committee says, "I can't see him fitting in here with his attitude toward school busing." The candidate was rejected even though his opinions about school busing had nothing to do with his expertise as a biologist. Repeat this consistently for 20 or 30 years and we have to expect that all the voices in that university will be singing from the same sheet music, with no sharps, flats or solo improvisation. So without diversity of thought on the hiring committees, there is no hope of fixing this problem.
It looks like there was a backlash against the bias that college students experience in academia in the recent election. A Tufts analysis of polls shows that 56% of Gen Z men voted for Trump. Maybe students are rejecting the institutional bias that saddled them with high debt for an educational experience of questionable intellectual value, and little or no practical value.
It would be interesting to see what college grads think of their professors and institutions several years after graduation. The recent wave of violent anti-Semitic protests on campuses will probably spark a larger backlash among alumni and revulsion from the general population.
There is a lot of hate under the surface in academia that is being exposed.
Roger,
When you get to the final (part 5, I believe),it would be constructive to analyze the effects of the politicization of publication and grant processes. I know I've harped on this incessantly, but without corrections in these two pillars of the educational system, I don't see how a balanced professor class could be maintained absent a complete rethinking of publish or perish. I'm not totally convinced who drove whom into the ditch, but each of the three pillars must be righted for the institution of education to survive under the current model.
Nothing like The Honest Broker to shine a brighter light on what is the brain washing of our youth and their politicalization If you can’t turn the country into Marxist at the ballot box do it through the education system. I have to laugh when the left says 25 Nobel prize economists Trump’s policies are inflationary. Some states are battling back like Florida by insisting on more balance or the state money dries up. We need the same discipline at the national level to turn this around. Perhaps alumni should think about the checks they write as well.
"This ideological narrowing is dangerous not just for the creation of new knowledge and research, but also because it does a disservice to the very people we professors are trying to educate and lift upward
Correction - professors by and large are not even trying to educate and uplift, they are merely trying to indoctrinate. Indoctrination is a process of narrowing the mind whereas education is a process of broadening it. I suspect that students typically graduate with a more narrowly defined worldview and less ability to consider other viewpoints than they had as freshmen. Universities are better described nowadays as uneducation establishments.
I don't think it is indoctrination, but something far more subtle. I'll discuss this more in the next two weeks, but my experiences are that most faculty are well meaning and deeply believe that they are conveying a singular "truth" that happens to be aligned with their politics and most everyone they encounter . . .
It is telling kids what to think vs teaching them HOW to think.
The definition of indoctrination.
Excellent article.
This is fantastic. Thanks.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Those that can't and teach tend to be malcontents with a chip on their shoulder because they can't. It has always been that way... the kids are stained by their professors but then MOST used to clear it up after launching into a real life of productive doing.
Two things have happened to break the process. One - many more kids are going to college. Two - fewer are launching into a real life of productive doing.
You note that .. Writing in 2017, Samuel Abrams characterized why ideological uniformity can be problematic for teaching and research. Does this refer to uniformity in terms of a uniform bias in one political direction? So ... for research, at least in the science disciplines, is Abrams saying that research is becoming increasingly less rigorous and less ideologically neutral?
I am struggling to read Chris Rufo's "America's Cultural Revolution" which covers some the same ground. It is one the most difficult books I have read in years, not because of the writing or the complexity of the ideas, but because of all the horses**t the man had to wade through to tell the story. The vast majority of it is flowing out from universities across the West. Thanks for continuing to draw attention to it. My son just failed to get a job at a Canadian post-secondary institution. I couldn't be more pleased.
Nice work again, Roger.