The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Far from Representing a Powerful Avant-Garde Leading the Way to Political Change, …
the politicized class of professors is a serious political liability to any party that it supports."
From Prof. Michael W. Clune, in the Chronicle of Higher Education; the whole piece is much worth reading, but here's one passage:
The second problem with thinking of a professor's work in explicitly political terms is that professors are terrible at politics. This is especially true of professors at elite colleges. Professors who — like myself — work in institutions that pride themselves on rejecting 70 to 95 percent of their applicants, and whose students overwhelmingly come from the upper reaches of the income spectrum, are simply not in the best position to serve as spokespeople for left-wing egalitarian values.
As someone who was raised in a working-class, immigrant family, academe first appeared to me as a world in which everyone's views seemed calculated to distinguish themselves from the working class. This is bad enough when those views concern art or esoteric anthropology theories. But when they concern everyday morality and partisan politics, the results are truly perverse.
In return for their tuition, students are given the faculty's high-class political opinions as a form of cultural capital. Thus the public perceives these opinions — on defunding the police, or viewing biological sex as a social construction, or Israel as absolute evil — as markers in a status game. Far from advancing their opinions, professors in fact function to invalidate these views for the majority of Americans who never had the opportunity to attend elite institutions but who are constantly stigmatized for their low-class opinions by the lucky graduates.
Far from representing a powerful avant-garde leading the way to political change, the politicized class of professors is a serious political liability to any party that it supports. The hierarchical structure of academe, and the role it plays in class stratification, clings to every professor's political pronouncement like a revolting odor.
My guess is that the successful Democrats of the future will seek to distance themselves as far as possible from the bespoke jargon and pedantic tone that has constituted the professoriate's signal contribution to Democratic politics. Nothing would so efficiently invalidate conservative views with working-class Americans than if every elite college professor was replaced by a double who conceived of their work in terms of activism for right-wing ideas. Professors are bad at politics, and politicized professors are bad for their own politics….
The piece offers many other arguments as well; again, much worth reading in its entirety.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If you agree with his characterization, Eugene, it is curious that you have chosen to dig even deeper into this elite, out-of-touch realm of "thinkers."
Personally, when it comes to less-educated voters' views about elite opinion, I suspect the reality is more like, "I don't think about you at all." Very online, political-junkie rightwingers may find academic speak obnoxious, and try to smear leftist politicians with it. But outside the very bubble that Clune is addressing (and you are addressing here, Eugene), people don't really care.
I think Clune has it backwards. It's not that academic support for a party is a liability for the party. It's that academic support for a party is indicative of the party's not speaking to less-educated concerns. Harris's closing argument in her campaign focused on the threat of fascism, while people are struggling to make ends meet. Academics understood that argument and see the historical trends, so of course supported her. But voters were motivated by other concerns.
The academic elite were in favor of racial desegregation, gay rights, equal rights for women. All of these ideas are now accepted. IOW what we are presented with here is too facile a generalization.
That's some remarkable revisionism. You should read up on actual academic opinions written during the Suffragette movement. You should also look up actual academic writings during the desgregation debates. Academics at "elite" institutions did not, by and large, get on board until well after mainstream opinion had already shifted.
Oh puleeze. They were in favor of slavery too, then mandatory segregation, then mandatory integration, and now mandatory segregation seems to be all the rage.
Men in women's sports is not equal rights for women. How would all that woke fluidentity crap have worked out if the Equal Rights Amendment had been adopted?
There are far more self-proclaimed Marxists in academe than conservatives. Either they are real Marxists, and thus ignorant and stupid; or they are fake Marxists, and thus conniving in addition to being ignorant and stupid.
Yes, some of those colleges have separate graduations for Black students.
There were demands for segregated dorms and classes too.
I think that academia is morally bankrupt and has been for decades.
They don't even know what words like "fascist" even mean.
Or "woman".
I take it you've given up pretending to be a history professor. Well done!
Because they want to murder women and children for fun? No, wait, that's you. Because they masturbate to the thought of civil war? No, wait, that's you again.
To be fair though, he’s more familiar with the content of their garbage than the average person.
No one on the right wants to murder women and children for fun. No one masturbates to the thought of civil war. No, not even the caricatures of conservatives you've drawn in your head.
I leave here for a couple of months and come back to notice that even the regulars around here have gone bat$hit crazy.
TDS is a hell of a drug...
I see you’re unfamiliar with Dr. Ed (a not unenviable position to be in).
"Because they want to murder women and children for fun? No, wait, that’s you."
Yeah, they just want to see women and girls raped, and women and children murdered in order to advance trans ideology and open borders.
I confess I don't see how that's better, but unlike David I'm not a psychotic nut
It was very funny watching Allan Lichtman accuse Cynk U of "blasphemy against me" for pointing out that Lichtman is a pathetic hack who lied about how the "keys" pointed to push the Dems, and was wrong.
Lichtman attacking Nate Silver for not having his "academic credentials", when Silver was correctly pointing out that an honest application of the "keys", as opposed to Lichtman's, would favor Trump was also hilarious.
Here's the reality of the situation: anyone in a political bubble is worthless at providing political support. Academia did not used to have such a tight bubble. but the Left got enough power that they could let their fascist flag fly, and now they drive out "thought criminals", by which them mean anyone who values reality over left wing ideology (see: female penis, men can get pregnant, inflation has been fixed, etc).
Until that ends, any place dominated by the Left is going to be worthless for providing actual political support / advice
Yes, Lichtman is making professors look bad. His political analysis was always terrible, and he refuses to admit that he was wrong. His claim of superior academic credentials is not impressing anyone.
"His claim of superior academic credentials is not impressing anyone."
To the contrary, it strongly impresses the negative value of those credentials.
I did enjoy that clip, but in context that seems like probably a malapropism for something “defamation” rather than an actual attempt to say that he is a golden god who can’t be criticized.
If the Keys favored Donald Trump (you know, the guy who won the election), isn’t that a point in their favor?
“defamation” has to be false, and everything Cenyk said abotu him was true.
If the Keys favored Donald Trump (you know, the guy who won the election), isn’t that a point in their favor?
Well, since the deluded buffoon who "invented" them said they went the other way, all this shows is that you can't trust "the keys" unless you trust the person telling you what "the keys" say.
Which means "the keys" dont' matter, only the analyst matters
"whose students overwhelmingly come from the upper reaches of the income spectrum"
It was pointed out after the college admissions cases that schools could get diversity of background and some diversity of melanin concentration by admitting more poor students, even having quotas for poor students.
Might be a good experiment for California. Rich parents are not supposed to be able to buy admission for their children any more. Pleasing rich families is less important.
Wouldn't work.
Lower income students haven't been brown nosing since the age of four in hopes of being gifted with admission. They aren't going to put up with the bullshyte while also asking some hard questions along the lines of "how is that relevant to me?"
The problem with Newman's "Idea of a University" is that his university would have been for the sons of the idle rich. Kids who have already worked for a living tend to be a wee bit more realistic...
"Professors are bad at politics, and politicized professors are bad for their own politics."
... posted by a professor, on a blog, where he pushes politics and policies. And invites other professors to do the same.
Without a sense of irony, apparently.
I'd say Prof. Volokh is the least political blogger here. Of course his opinion on something may shine through here or there. But not that often.
In reality, your statement is pure projection. The commentariat of this blog is what's heavily political; not the posters. Then again, to someone who's far on the left of the spectrum the bloggers may seem political.
And then there is this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/a-harvard-dishonesty-researcher-was-accused-of-fraud-her-defense-is-troubling/ar-BB1klLXb
There is SO MUCH academic fraud (I'm not taking sides on this one) and that includes Claudine Gay. And fraud tends to disqualify the legitimacy of your arguments...
"The way this society works is this: Leftist intellectuals with hare-brained Marxist ideas get to control Stanford, MIT, Yale, and the American Studies Department at the University of Vermont. In return, the right gets IBM, DEC, Honeywell, Disney World, and the New York Stock Exchange. Leftist academics get to try out their stupid ideas on impressionable youth between seventeen and twenty-one who don't have any money or power. The right gets to try out its ideas on North America, South America,Europe, Asia, Australia, and parts of Africa, most of which take MasterCard. The left gets Harvard, Oberlin, Twyla Tharp's dance company, and Madison Wisconsin. The right gets NASDAQ, Boeing, General Motors, Apple, McDonnell Douglas, Washington, D.C., Citicorp, Texas, Coca Cola, General Electric, Japan, and outer space.
This seems like a fair arrangement."
Joe Queenan, Imperial Caddy
well, except that the Left owns most of the tech industry these days, as well as the communications industry, advertising, elementary and secondary education and on and on and on. Even some of the companies Queenan says the right owns are either gone now (McDonnell Douglas) or are taken over by the left. Marcuse & Co's march through the institutions has been amazingly successful.
Care to give any examples? Both republicans and democrats own the media / tech landscape
Xfinity/comcast - James Dolan (right) https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/james-dolan-donald-trump-madison-square-garden.html
NY Times CEO - Mark Thompson - no donations
Fox News / WSJ - Murdoch (right)
ATT - Right Leaning (https://www.axios.com/local/dallas/2021/10/07/att-criticized-funding-conservative-lawmakers-texas-abortion-law)
Oracle - Trump (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-ceos-and-companies-that-support-trump-biden-115206109.html)
Amazon / Washington Post - Center (didn't endorse anyone for president) (https://marketrealist.com/p/jeff-bezos-political-party/)
Twitter - Elon Musk (Right)
The point is, tech and communications leaders/owners aren't a monolith, and they support republicans and democrats. You're gut is just wrong on this.
What party a CEO donates to does not figure into how a company leans politically. I could find within most left leaning companies that there are a few leaders are quietly conservative or Republican. It doesn't make the company that way.
You missed by a mile here.
You need to catch up. The new right claims literally every institution is against them, including the GOP itself.
The article begins with "Over the last ten years..." Sorry Professor Clune, but the academic rot of indoctrination instead of education began over a generation ago not a decade.
Sure, the left sorta dominated academia, especially the touchy-feelie majors, since the 60's and 70's, but it really got bad after the '94 election, when the left-wing academics realized to their horror that conservatives could actually win elections, and have the opportunity to put their ideas into action.
That caused the leftists in academia to switch from viewing their right-wing and centrist colleagues as harmless crackpots, to seeing them as dangerous ideologues. And they began a sort of purge by attrition, ceasing to hire anybody they suspected of being a conservative.
You can look at past academic surveys: Up until the mid to late 90's, things were steady with the left having a modest majority on faculties, with some majors actually trending conservative. Then suddenly the ratios started shifting, until by the '10s whole faculties were lacking anybody who self-identified as conservative.
Returning to the OP, academia was probably more politically persuasive when they still had a political distribution that looked at least somewhat like the electorate; It's really hard to persuade people you have little experience interacting with on a daily basis.
This is absolute tripe.
"the politicized class of professors is a serious political liability to any party that it supports."
Bullshit. The politicized class of professors is training huge swaths of young adults to support that party. That's a huge asset.
It would be more accurate to say that they're an asset to the left as long as they stick to indoctrinating students, and become a liability as soon as they start lecturing the public at large.
Except that's starting to backfire
Something that happens when people discover the indoctrination really is bullshit.
"In return for their tuition, students are given the faculty's high-class political opinions as a form of cultural capital."
Well, unless you go to, say, MIT. Then you probably get those opinions for free!