Would "Affirmative Action" for Conservatives in Academia "Backfire"?

Universities should be wary of adopting practices or policies that "discourage curiosity and reward narrowness of thought."

Should universities increase (initiate?) efforts to enhance viewpoint or ideological diversity among faculty? Some think so. Others are not so sure. And would such efforts necessarily require taking affirmative steps to increase the likelihood of hiring conservatives, such as creating special centers or faculty lines, or would it be enough to counteract bias against non-progressive views in the hiring process? On this there is active debate.

The New York Times published an op-ed this week on the subject by University of Pennsylvania philosophy professor Jennifer Morton, "Why Hiring Professors With Conservative Views Could Backfire on Conservatives." In the op-ed Professor Morton writes:

Certainly, there is not enough engagement with conservative ideas on college campuses. Schools can and should do more to ensure that students encounter a greater range of political perspectives in syllabuses and among speakers invited to give talks.

But a policy of hiring professors and admitting students because they have conservative views would actually endanger the open-minded intellectual environment that proponents of viewpoint diversity say they want. By creating incentives for professors and students to have and maintain certain political positions, such a policy would discourage curiosity and reward narrowness of thought.

Perhaps few would argue that universities should adopt policies or practices that "discourage curiosity and reward narrowness of thought." But if that is really the concern, it seems that potential, as-yet-unimplemented policies designed to increase viewpoint diversity would hardly top the list of things to be worried about.

Comments

[rswallen]

Seems to me that such a policy would be likely to result in feelings that such faculty are less qualified, and simply hired to fill a quota (just like other affirmative action policies).

[Supremacy Claus]

Oh, heck to the No. These are dirty Commies. They have to all be cancelled to save our country. In their Form 990, these treason indoctrination camps promised education in exchange for their tax exemption privilege. In education, all sides of a subject are covered. That includes the geocentric view that the sun rotates about the earth in astronomy class. That class will enrich the lesson greatly. When one side of a subject is taught, that is called indoctrination. Indoctrination is tax fraud. That is also unethical for the professor occupation.

De-exempt them. Defund them. De-accredit them. Seize their assets in civil forfeiture for their tax fraud.

[minus the clever name]

Why would something that looks good to do in the law NOT be a good thing to do just because it is a good thing???
As to rswallen, that is exactly how Ketanji Brown is beginning to look, isn't it. Biden called her one of the greatest legal minds of her generation but turns out she isn't even the greatest legal mind in any gathering of two lawyers.

BTW Biden was bottom 10 of his law class.

[Longtobefree]

"Universities should be wary of adopting practices or policies that "discourage curiosity and reward narrowness of thought.""

Adopting? You misspelled "continuing".

[minus the clever name]

IF you dropped ANY standards you would have more Conservatives. But affirmatively looking for them brings in the Zuckerberg Effect.
Does anyone think he changed about anything

"Zuckerberg said the changes are meant to address political “bias” and curtail “censorship” — echoing arguments that President-elect Donald Trump and his supporters have long made about the platform."

My mother would say that he knows who butters his bread.

NO, if you don't ask everybody that comes in the door whether they prefer chocolate to vanilla you will probably end up mirroring the general population better than if you offer a job to whoever says 'Hey, I like the minority flaver better, hire me, hire me"

[bacchys]

Conservatives today tend to be less intelligent.

[Taco8647]

Quite possibly the single worst thing that could happen to “conservatives.”

1. They lose their biggest ideological grievance, which matters to their non-white trash smart-talking types
2. They can’t radicalize nonconformist students via the us/them al-Qaeda model
3. Deans will decide what a “conservative” is, spanning the whole alt-gender spectrum of conservatism from paleo-Democrat Pocahontas lovers like JD Vance to Rand “I’m just here so I don’t get fined/primaried” Paul

I vote in favor!

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Affirmative action is dodgy enough, but affirmative action for ideology? If men can identify as women while retaining their dangly bits and woke women put up with it in the name of wokeness, how hard is it to identify as conservative while still spouting woke ideology? If there are 57 genders, why are there only two ideologies?

What a dumb idea. Perfect for lawyers and politicians.

[Randal]

For the only time ever, I agree with this guy. Jonathan is wrong here. There's probably no better way to "discourage curiosity and reward narrowness of thought" than to sort everyone by their "ideology." It turns thought and reason into a zero-sum battle... just look at the current state of US politics as a cautionary tale.

[Randal]

... which is the same reason DEI failed. It turned race and gender into a zero-sum battle. Not intentionally, but that's just what happens when you take what should be a minor characteristic and make it way overly salient by thoroughly institutionalizing it.

[Rossami]

Reread the article. Prof Alder does not support this idea. He is reporting on a proposal made by others and commenting on it's likely consequences, including the "unintended" ones.

[Randal]

Yeah. He's wrong not to support Morton's thesis.

[ReaderY]

Professor Morton appears to think that if people admitted into a university’s conservative slots should later change their minds, they will lose their jobs, scholarships, etc., the way students lose athletic scholarships if they decide to quit the sport.

This what I think she means by “incentives” to “maintain their views.”

I don’t think things would work that way.

[Taco8647]

Imagine a new conservative hire in 1996.

Notionally, this professor believes:
- small government principles generally work
- deficits are bad
- social security and entitlements need reform
- Roe must go
- perhaps some of the more popular socially conservative views of the era, such as DADT doesn’t go far enough/supports DOMA, supports welfare reform, etc.

If this person stayed in the same position through 2025, must they (d)evolve their views to conform with MAGA to keep their seat? Or would they be grandfathered in as a previously tokenized kapo?

[Michael D]

This is what can happen when any organization accepts money from government. The organization begins to serve the interests of the politicians in control of the government at that time.

With that said, I will repeat what I wrote the other day, paraphrasing Jefferson, by calling for a wall of separation between education and state.

How does that look for colleges? Assuming state legislatures find the political will to defund colleges and the Congress ends the student-loan crony capitalism bonanza, it could look very good, it turns out.

Without subsidization, very few students are likely to pay out of their own pockets for useless degrees. Without a guaranteed flow of subsidies, the vast majority of non-STEM departments will, finally, close down. The universities, which have become a kind of large-scale government welfare program, would either go into receivership or else break up into smaller units, with the profitable ones (most likely engineering and the like) remaining in business. The hopeless ones will finally give up the ghost.

Many will object that this is anti-intellectual, but the contrary is true. There are serious scholars remaining in American academia today.

Far from being anti-intellectual, this model would free researchers to engage in pure intellectual discovery, undisturbed by the swarms of degree-seekers who are literally forced to take classes in subjects they despise merely for the sake of preserving the fiction that everyone benefits equally from attendance at a university. Relieved of the drudgery that ensues when the masses are made to endure education against their will, professors would be able to think, write, and say whatever their funders are willing to tolerate.

As things now stand, students, their parents, and the taxpayers of each state are being bilked out of billions of dollars a year. Administrators grow rich, universities run real professors out of their jobs in order to save money by hiring adjuncts, and students shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars each that could be kept in their pockets or else put toward learning what they want to learn. There are few outside of academia itself — and the financial sector that funds students loans — who benefit from our whirlpooling student debt. It is long past time to let the free market back into our universities and, finally, put their houses in order.

In short, the disastrous condition of modern academia is not a market failure — it is a failure of central planning, political patronage, and artificial demand generated by government subsidies. Once a college takes government money, it no longer answers to students, parents, or the pursuit of truth. It answers to the political class. That is why the only path forward — both for academic integrity and fiscal sanity — is to fully restore the independence of education from the state. Just as Jefferson called for a wall between church and state to protect both institutions, we must now erect a similar wall between education and government. Only then can our universities become places of real learning once again — not bloated bureaucracies serving political fashions at public expense.

[Randal]

You might have some interesting thoughts in there, but you've conflated too many issues. It's just a "whirlwind" of words. You need to clarify your supporting points. Student loan subsidies are one thing, grants are a different thing. Tax exemptions are different from either, and don't forget the monopoly and employment law exemptions (for sports in particular). Those might all contribute to your thesis, but in distinct ways.

[Michael D]

I thought the same thing after the window closed on editing comments.

[dwb68]

"Open-minded intellectual environment" he says, unironically.

There is absolutely nothing open-minded about the current academic culture. Its an insular as a monastery and heaven forbid you question whether the Earth is the of the solar system.

[Roger S]

She seems to equate being open-minded with having doctrinaire leftist views. Hiring conservatives only rewards narrowness of thought.

She is the narrow-minded one here.

[wvattorney13]

The schools don't need affirmative action for conservatives. They need to get rid of their implicit bias that rejects conservative thought out of hand and rewards leftist ideas.

[Rossami]

It's not implicit bias. I'd be happy if they just got rid of the explicit bias.

[Randal]

Everybody is wrong here, except for Jamie Dimon. This isn't about bias, implicit or explicit. It's about the elevation of ideology to the status of "immutable characteristic" or even "suspect class." That's the crisis.

The left used to be practical. Then it turned ideological. DEI failed, not because its goals were wrong, but because it didn't even achieve them! It backfired actually. We should recognize that, learn from it, and move on.

The left needs to remember how to pursue values while rejecting ideology. Just that would solve these campus problems.

https://thehill.com/business/5397343-dimon-criticizes-democrats-dei-practices/

[Roger S]

Throughout the article, this politically progressive woman philosophy professor equates conservatives with libertarians. When she teaches courses on the social contract, she tells students to read a libertarian to get the conservative view!

Hiring conservative professors is not enough. She needs to be sent to a re-education camp.

[Sarcastr0]

I believe in some push to broaden ideology on campus.

I also agree with this: a policy of hiring professors and admitting students because they have conservative views would actually endanger the open-minded intellectual environment that proponents of viewpoint diversity say they want

A formal policy is problematic for a number of reasons, both in terms of conservative cultural identity and creating perverse incentives.

But less directive cultural effort seems not just a good idea, but logically required if you think diversity of perspective strengthens group efforts.
If one values diversity, a competent and collegial conservative has value under that same philosophy.

Accept that, and the rest will follow without needing to set up a quota or the like.

[MollyGodiva]

There are not that many "conservative" academics to fill the jobs. Being a modern conservative and being an academic are not compatible. Modern conservatives care little of logic, truth, or facts.

[wvattorney13]

As I said, you don't need affirmative action if you get rid of this ridiculous belief. That is why there are very few conservative professors. The libs simply believe that conservatives are not qualified.

[Randal]

No. The problem is that conservatives have become unwilling to call out the morons in their own ranks. If an otherwise-qualified candidate turns a blind eye to anti-intellectual nonsense like ivermectin and chemtrails, then they're not in fact qualified for an intellectual role.