This is a great post. I have a hard time explaining to people how University research works, as there are many moving parts. I don't have the patience to write it all out like this, so I am glad you have.
I worked at a NIH funded center for a while. One thing that I saw happen was 1. Government grant says you need to work towards these diversity numbers 2. Hires that can do the work and meet the diversity requirements now are not just equally looked at, they are being recruited 3. Budding PhD or young Professors that are being recruited to NY, San Diego, Denver (etc.)... or West Lafayette.
Which one are you going to chose?
Will your University in the Midwest match what the one in NYC will offer to them anyway :)
There are many good points in here, but the main challenge is that it's difficult to argue a person out of a position that he didn't argue himself into. The loudest critics are overwhelmingly operating in bad faith, and so good faith responses will never assuage their "concerns". When conservative student groups choose to invite speakers to campus like Michael Knowles and Charlie Kirk they are making clear that they are not interested in approaching campus speech in a serious or good-faith manner.
And so, yes, I record my lectures and stand by how I teach my material, but I also live with a degree of fear that my idea of "teach the controversy" is different from a bad-faith ideologue's idea of doing so. I teach controversy where there is genuine scientific controversy within the field, but I'm not going to give equal time or equal credence to unequally supported ideas.
As a nontenured professor I have to operate on faith that my department/dean/provost will have my back if any bad-faith actors decide to come after me. In general I feel confident that they will, but the environment is a hostile one.
I agree that some folks are not arguing or acting in good faith on these issues, and there is likely no convincing them. But I do think it’s useful to address people who think viewpoint diversity *sounds* good because they’ve been told politicized professors throughout the academy have run amok. First by correcting the facts and second by helping them think through the implications.
I am hopeful there are far more people in the uncertain middle than unswayable true believers.
But yeah. We badly need heads and deans who will do what is right in the face of political pressure.
Very interesting and useful points. From a political perspective, the impact of college education on students’ political preferences matters far more than faculty views, since faculty make up only a tiny share of the population.
I think there are a couple of issues here. First, if you look at recent college grads you could ask whether left-leaning students are more likely to attend college, or whether their political orientation shifted after they went to college. My guess is the latter, but I don't have data at hand.
Second, and maybe more important. The shift in political orientation has also occurred for adults who long since graduated (or not) from college, so you can't really ascribe it to something that changed within the university during this period. That suggests It has to be something in the political environment that polarized people along educational lines, not something in the educational environment that polarized people along political lines.
This is a great post. I have a hard time explaining to people how University research works, as there are many moving parts. I don't have the patience to write it all out like this, so I am glad you have.
I worked at a NIH funded center for a while. One thing that I saw happen was 1. Government grant says you need to work towards these diversity numbers 2. Hires that can do the work and meet the diversity requirements now are not just equally looked at, they are being recruited 3. Budding PhD or young Professors that are being recruited to NY, San Diego, Denver (etc.)... or West Lafayette.
Which one are you going to chose?
Will your University in the Midwest match what the one in NYC will offer to them anyway :)
Thanks for sharing your perspective...to your last question, it depends on what they are looking for!
Thanks again...
There are many good points in here, but the main challenge is that it's difficult to argue a person out of a position that he didn't argue himself into. The loudest critics are overwhelmingly operating in bad faith, and so good faith responses will never assuage their "concerns". When conservative student groups choose to invite speakers to campus like Michael Knowles and Charlie Kirk they are making clear that they are not interested in approaching campus speech in a serious or good-faith manner.
And so, yes, I record my lectures and stand by how I teach my material, but I also live with a degree of fear that my idea of "teach the controversy" is different from a bad-faith ideologue's idea of doing so. I teach controversy where there is genuine scientific controversy within the field, but I'm not going to give equal time or equal credence to unequally supported ideas.
As a nontenured professor I have to operate on faith that my department/dean/provost will have my back if any bad-faith actors decide to come after me. In general I feel confident that they will, but the environment is a hostile one.
I agree that some folks are not arguing or acting in good faith on these issues, and there is likely no convincing them. But I do think it’s useful to address people who think viewpoint diversity *sounds* good because they’ve been told politicized professors throughout the academy have run amok. First by correcting the facts and second by helping them think through the implications.
I am hopeful there are far more people in the uncertain middle than unswayable true believers.
But yeah. We badly need heads and deans who will do what is right in the face of political pressure.
Very interesting and useful points. From a political perspective, the impact of college education on students’ political preferences matters far more than faculty views, since faculty make up only a tiny share of the population.
According to Inside Higher Ed, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2024/11/08/men-and-white-people-vote-differently-based-education, the college-educated vote was close to 50/50 just 10–12 years ago, but has since shifted strongly toward Democrats. It’s no surprise, then, that higher education is now heavily scrutinized by Republicans. The key question is: what changed to cause this shift?
I think there are a couple of issues here. First, if you look at recent college grads you could ask whether left-leaning students are more likely to attend college, or whether their political orientation shifted after they went to college. My guess is the latter, but I don't have data at hand.
Second, and maybe more important. The shift in political orientation has also occurred for adults who long since graduated (or not) from college, so you can't really ascribe it to something that changed within the university during this period. That suggests It has to be something in the political environment that polarized people along educational lines, not something in the educational environment that polarized people along political lines.
excellent points, thank you.