Conservatives and Academia
Professor Bainbridge is debating Jonathan Chait of the New Republic on the question of why there are so few conservatives in academia. Essentially, they are both partially right. Bainbridge argues that there is institutional bias in the hiring process in favor of liberals. So there is. One of my favorite stories is how a very good interview I had with the Indiana University English Department came crashing down when I noted that I would include among the non-fiction books I might teach as "literature" Whittaker Chambers' autobiography Witness. I could have farted and it wouldn't have had the same jaw-dropping, how-do-we-get-this-guy-out-of-here effect.
On the other hand, one of Chait's arguments is that conservatives often self-select for occupations other than academia, often because they are higher-paying. So they do.... for instance, I opted to go back to law school after getting my Ph.D. and spending a desultory few years teaching precisely because I wanted to make a decent living, support my family, send my children to Catholic schools, etc. Chait thinks that making such a choice is a sign that conservatives are greedy or lack idealism or a willingness to sacrifice material comforts. I disagree -- supporting your family by working a hard job rather than continuing to live the "life of the mind" (which is also coincidentally a life with very nice hours) is idealistic and self-sacrificing.
The bulk of Chait's argument, however, is typical conservatives-are-stupid-and-liberals-are-smart tripe, and Bainbridge is right to rip him. That tack is the oldest and most tedious ad hominem argument in the book... no need to argue logically, since my opponent is an imbecile. Imagine if I tried that in court... "your Honor, I would be happy to argue the facts or present real legal argument based upon case law that has precedential authority in this jurisdiction, but I think we should win simply because my opponent didn't go to a high-ranking undergraduate institution like Princeton, as I did." There is no judge in the country who wouldn't laugh me out of court. Yet liberals have made it their mantra.
On the other hand, one of Chait's arguments is that conservatives often self-select for occupations other than academia, often because they are higher-paying. So they do.... for instance, I opted to go back to law school after getting my Ph.D. and spending a desultory few years teaching precisely because I wanted to make a decent living, support my family, send my children to Catholic schools, etc. Chait thinks that making such a choice is a sign that conservatives are greedy or lack idealism or a willingness to sacrifice material comforts. I disagree -- supporting your family by working a hard job rather than continuing to live the "life of the mind" (which is also coincidentally a life with very nice hours) is idealistic and self-sacrificing.
The bulk of Chait's argument, however, is typical conservatives-are-stupid-and-liberals-are-smart tripe, and Bainbridge is right to rip him. That tack is the oldest and most tedious ad hominem argument in the book... no need to argue logically, since my opponent is an imbecile. Imagine if I tried that in court... "your Honor, I would be happy to argue the facts or present real legal argument based upon case law that has precedential authority in this jurisdiction, but I think we should win simply because my opponent didn't go to a high-ranking undergraduate institution like Princeton, as I did." There is no judge in the country who wouldn't laugh me out of court. Yet liberals have made it their mantra.
posted by PDB at 6:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home