In the May 6 issue of Commonweal, Fordham theology professor Michael Peppard promised to provide a sympathetic treatment of concerns raised by those who perceive a dearth of conservative voices in the Academy. Dissatisfied with the diagnosis of widespread discrimination, Peppard, whose journalistic and scholarly work I greatly admire, seemed poised to provide a judicious analysis that would take seriously the charge that the Academy lacked a certain “intellectual diversity” by outlining some particularly compelling, if underrepresented, conservative claims.
I was disheartened to find, however, that in the same breath with which he dismissed the suspicion of prejudice, he proceeded to engage in the very armchair psychoanalysis that serves only to perpetuate mutual paranoia on both sides. Instead of outlining a series of rationally grounded positions that might be called conservative, Peppard identified four “temperaments or dispositions,” which might make conservatives ill-at-ease working in the contemporary research university. Peppard fails to recognize that his so-called temperaments are actually serious claims concerning the character and value of tradition, family, freedom, and the rationality of behavior. While I may disagree with many conservatives on a number of issues, telling them that the source of our dispute is due to particular personality traits seems, at the very least, to be a conversation-stopper.
Peppard’s first “conservative” temperament is the most surprising of the four. As a New Testament scholar, it seems particularly strange that Peppard would claim that “valuing the maintenance and passing on of intellectual tradition” is a simple matter of preference, which the “contemporary research university” lacks. One only has to glance briefly at the Chronicle of Higher Education or the opinion page of the New York Times, both of which have not often been accused of conservative bias, to get a sense of the robust conversation surrounding the depreciating value of traditional, humanistic education in the face of higher returns promised by investing in career-oriented, scientific training.
Even in the humanities, though, Peppard claims that most “conservatives” would not feel at home having to “revise,” “shatter—or at least complicate—some traditional idea.” But is this “discomfort” not grounded in a particular understanding of what counts as an “intellectual” tradition and how such traditions are transmitted?
Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, argued not only that our empirical inquiries are fallible, due to the fact that they treat objects that are finite and always changing, but our theological inquiry is also subject to continued scrutiny, because, though our “object of study” is unchanging, our finite minds cannot grasp the infinite reality of God. Thus, we have to constantly rethink our traditional ideas of God so as to avoid the kind of prideful idolatry that claims to have rationally exhausted knowledge of the Divine. The “conservative” who finds it necessary to preserve the constancy of tradition for fear of having to revise, complicate, or shatter “traditional ideas” is not suffering from a particular intellectual idiosyncrasy; for Aquinas, such a person is simply wrong about how ideas work, not to mention potentially heretical.
The second trait that Peppard identifies involves “plans to marry and have children,” which he says can be frustrated by the lack of family-friendly policies at many universities. I’m not so sure that the lack of family-friendly policies is exclusive to the “liberal” Academy. There are probably a number of “conservatives” on Wall Street or working for Fox News facing the “biological” and “professional risks” of balancing career and family.
More importantly, however, I don’t know many parents who would describe their desire to marry and have children as a particular disposition. Minimally, most people describe marriage and children as something they simply couldn’t not do—that is, they were called or fell in love. Maximally, they might subscribe to a set of beliefs about the procreative and unitive entailments of sexual love and the individual and communal commitments they require.
Claiming that such a rigorously normative conversation can be reduced to a matter of personal proclivity treats the debate over family-friendly policies as if it were on the level of arguments for more smoker-friendly policies. Smokers want more sheltered, designated smoking areas, and “conservatives” want more lactation rooms.
Peppard’s third conservative trait is the desire to have “as much individual freedom as possible.” Peppard says that those who want control over where they live and want several employers from which to choose, would be dissuaded by a competitive academic job market in which most professors are grateful to get any job, anywhere. Again, however, this competitiveness is not specific to academia. There are plenty of workers who are forced to relocate in order to find or maintain employment, which may point to a general problem regarding the plight of labor in a capitalist economy that is not simply confined to the Academy.
Specific to the Academy, however, is the character of scholarly research, which is not simply about building, marketing, and selling a product, but is primarily about stewarding a set of perennial questions and forming students in their asking and answering. Of course, the academic profession is not without its share of self-promotion and promises of independence, but at its core, the professoriate is a service-oriented and artistic vocation. We are, for the most part, teachers and writers, and this means that we have to go where our services are needed, and we depend on the cultural and financial capital of our patrons to support our work, which is also predicated on successfully arguing for the intrinsic value of humanistic education.
The longing for autonomy dovetails with Peppard’s final conservative trait—avoiding “irrationally risky behavior.” This is also neither a clearly conservative temperament nor a question of individual disposition. Concerning the former, it is not clear to me that passionate pro-life activists, fiscally conservative opponents of “entitlements,” or stereotypically neo-conservative “war hawks” are any more risk-averse than Peppard’s “latte-sipping liberal.”
Indeed, it seems that given the degree to which one is committed to a particular position, including the soundness of the reasons and validity of the arguments that are believed to support it, many people are prepared to risk quite a lot in its pursuit. Beyond this, though, Peppard seems to think that the primary criteria for determining what counts as rational behavior is the guarantee of stable returns for investments. Is it really irrational to do what you love, even if it entails certain necessary sacrifices that might exceed the tolerance of many?
It is unfortunate that Peppard’s analysis does not treat the complex issues that lie at the heart of current discussions both within and outside of the Academy regarding the future of university education. His obvious goodwill toward both conservatives and liberals might have enabled him to engage in the debate without getting lost in the echo chamber of useless sloganeering. In the end, though, by refusing to recognize the rationally grounded claims of either side, Peppard fails to take seriously those with whom he would like to claim sympathy. Instead, he merely sets up yet another clash of cultures, which pits tradition-bound, family-friendly, fiscally sound entrepreneurs against nihilistic, family-free, impractical communists. For my part, I can see good reasons to resist either characterization, but then again, maybe I’m just ill-tempered.
Eric Bugyis is a Ph.D. Candidate at Yale University and a Graduate Fellow of the Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study.
RESOURCES
Michael Peppard, Risky Business: Why so few conservatives become professors
Comments:
Peppard's concept of 'personal freedom' (at least as represented here) is a purely economic one. It reminds me of what Peter Kreeft has said about our culture's confusion of sex and money - we wrap money in all manner of special protections, even expecting it to reproduce and grow, but we view sex as a mere means of exchange. . .
But, it is helpful to know that the dearth of conservative voices in academia is just a matter of temperament and personal idiosyncracies, and not something, you know, really serious. . .
I think that this is the trait that really defines an element of thesis that I can relate to. As we all strive for individual freedom as much as possible throughout our lives where it be subconsciously or consciously.
Was that writ ironical, some sort of sarcastic comment on what you believe conservatives believe? Because you don't have to be a moral relativist to recognize that context matters (e.g. murder is absolutely wrong, but killing may or may not be murder depending on the context) or that duties can conflict or that there are degrees of right and wrong or that moral ambiguity is not the same as moral relativism. And I doubt there are many conservatives that do not recognize those facts.
FIRST: Academics are, whether they like to admit it or not, fad-followers, unless they make a concerted effort to avoid it, by writing what they please regardless of its chances for publication, or by reading broadly and deeply in the humanities. Not many do these things. So one reason why conservatives are not well represented is that the faculty don't even know about their existence. It's part of the greater problem, of narrow specialization, and the tossing away of huge areas of knowledge.
SECOND: Related to the first: Academics are increasingly unwilling to admit that anything written before yesterday is worth their attention. You can't talk about the deeply conservative vision of Virgil -- I use the word because he has a tragic vision of human possibilities (unaided by the grace whereof he could know nothing) -- because they don't care about Virgil, they don't read Virgil, they don't see the point in having anybody read Virgil. I have had this quarrel with my own colleagues in the political science department here for 20 years.
THIRD: Academics are a class, with class sentiments. Oh, they talk a big talk about classism, while they use adjuncts for slave labor and fleece the parents of their students. Conservatives, for them, are the "wrong" sort of people, and they would as soon associate with them as Lady Astor would have invited a Portuguese fisherman for tea and crumpets.
FOURTH: Academics have bought feminism tout court. Indeed most of them are deeply invested in it. They cannot budge. You can say all you want, "Don't you realize that you are double-income professionals widening the gap between rich and working class households?" It won't matter.
FIFTH: Many academics are saved from lives on the street cadging dollars for booze by the presence of academe. They can't saw a board or dig a ditch or clear a field or swing an ax. So they quite drastically overvalue the things they can do (and the ones who can't even write, whose names are Legion, are the worst overvaluers), and use their oddball political positions as a way of distancing themselves from the masses, whom they look down upon even as they try to patronize them.
SIXTH: Many academics are like voyeurs. They would never actually LIVE in sexual squalor, because somehow it wouldn't look good on the resume, but they derive real self-satisfaction, a sense of being Justified and Saved, from advocating for sexual squalor elsewhere.
SEVENTH: If you worship God, you know that all your political and economic opinions are pretty worthless by comparison with His law. You are continually required to examine your conscience and to humble yourself. Whether you actually do these things or not is another matter, but at least you know you should be doing them. At least you cannot take "Republican" or "Democrat" with ultimate seriousness. But academics are beyond all that -- or many of them are. So they turn to the nearest idol they can find.
Has there been one hired within the last 10 years? The last 20? Raise your hand if you're laughing out loud at the question. (Dulles was hired in 1988.)
Why would a conservative enter a field with that kind of hiring pattern?
Speaking of academe in general, the level of intelligence among the professorate has dropped sharply over the last decade or so. The younger professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, are not really scholars and teachers; they are propagandists for a pet "theory," purveyors of political correctness. The older professors tend to be old-fshioned or classic Liberals, although some try to keep up with the youngsters.
They are a few, a precious few, Conservatives in academe, but they tend to keep their heads down.
Isn't this "he proceeded to engage in the very armchair psychoanalysis that serves only to perpetuate mutual paranoia on both sides" normal activity?
Another reason: The often ROTTEN treatment that conservative or Christian students receive at the hands of their professors. Now this is not universally true, not by a long shot. I know plenty of liberal (not hard leftist) professors who give conservative students a fair shake, and the students respond quite well to that fairness. But how many cross-burnings does it take to terrorize a neighborhood? How many students have to be given a bad grade for their convictions for the rest of the students to get the idea? Or -- I am here thinking of a friend and colleague -- how many graduate students have to have years stolen from their professional lives because of antichristian hatred?
This reason really isn't hard to grasp. There are all kinds of ways to make people feel despised. I could tell plenty of stories.
I was fortunate in that many of the teachers in my small school were believers. Most are not so fortunate I fear.
I find Peppard's analysis so laughable I can hardly think of how to respond. The explanation for why conservatives are "under-represented" in academia is so blindlingly obvious that it takes an essay like his, positing theories that really can't be empirically demonstrated, to come up with an adequate smoke-screen. I suppose it's slightly better than some other theories I've heard (such as "everyone knows that conservatives are stupid and therefore incapable of academic work"), but really no one outside of liberal faculty are likely to be impressed with Peppard's theory.
But in liberal faculty lounges around the country, they'll be patting each other on the back for sparing Conservatives from being sentenced to an inevitably un-fulfilling life in the academy for which, Peppard has demonstrated, they are constitutionally unfit. Ideology is destiny, man.
1. It is not clear to me that Eric Bugyis or the commenters thus far have read the AEI sociological report that I cited or other similar studies, and without that background, I can see how my essay must have seemed very unusual and disagreeable. I would be interested to hear if/how your perspective of my essay changes in light of the sociological studies of what conservatives *self-report* and how that relates to why they might not choose to pursue Ph.Ds.
2. Defining the concept “conservative” is infamously tricky, and the meaning is constantly shifting – most notably, with the introduction of so-called neo-conservatives, who share very few characteristics with other kinds of conservatives. I see how I could have done more to explain what I did NOT mean by the term in the essay, but then again, we all have word counts to deal with, and that part of the essay got shortened in editing. Thinking about conservative temperaments and dispositions allowed me to see differently certain aspects of the path to a Ph.D. in the current research university, and I think they provide some added explanatory power for the lack of conservatives on the front end of the Ph.D. pipeline.
Welcome to my world folks!
I would think those who are politically liberal are just as likely to be shy, family-oriented, culturally restrained, risk-averse or the opposite of such temperamants as are conservatives. But that's not really what you mean, is it? Because I have never seen any controversy over a perceived under-representation of shy, family-oriented, restrained and risk-averse individuals in the academy. However, I'm sure we can wrassle up some academics to lobby for affirmative action for those who are "temperamentally-challenged" and therefore under-represented in the academy, so long faculties are free to select only those with politically liberal ideas.
Regardless, I can put you in touch with more than a dozen conservatives with PhD's who have been significanlty thwarted in their careers because of liberal faculty bias, and many more who have been discouraged from starting down the path to a PhD not because they lack imagination, fortitude, passion or willingness to sacrifice or take risks to get a shot at a faculty position.
In fact, conservatives have a hard time getting into a position where they could do sociological research on what motivates liberal faculty members to shut conservatives out from the academy. What possible temperaments of their character could make them be so insecure that they cannot abide those who disagree with them?
For instance, discrimination on the basis of sex is barred by law. So anti-sexism becomes the default campus orthodoxy. This creates career barriers and discomfort for unapologetically "sexist" thinkers like Allan Carlson, but also for merely non-sexist professors who can't get on board with the activism.
If the term 'coservative' is somewhat equated with one who trusts in what trust in our Lord can do ( and those who, even of other faiths , have similar perspectives on good and evil ) , then , should it not be the other way around - instead of worrying about why the so called 'liberal' side is not giving them chances , wondering where the power is not being focused !
Even a few , in academic places and at work , in homes , calling on His Name with trust ...
on behalf of those who have fallen into the snare of trusting in themsleves or the approval of those around ..
doing it all , with the gentle peace and sweet trusting smile , in Him ..so that they do not even realise that the battlle is being waged, on their behalf ..
sitting through every subtle lie laden lecture, calling on His Name ..
http://www.catholictradition.org/Litanies/litany1.htm and to remember how the warriors of old did so ..
or even the new warriors - the amazing bio of Pope John Paul 11 , who too lived amidst hostile powers , only to be strenghtened ..
Articles such as these do help though, to get the eyes open , esp. for the young and their parents , just in case they have not been ready to discern what is out there !
Our struggle is not against flesh and blood ..and those who resist and fear those who do not take their ways may be doing so , not in full freedom , but from being slaves to the enemy fears ..and when every believer is ready and willing to use the powerful weapons at hand , with the inner joy and certitude from trusting in Him ,
we do not even need that many research papers may be ..but the infused wisdom of The Spirit !
“They don't care about Virgil, they don't read Virgil, they don't see the point in having anybody read Virgil”
This is very significant. To appreciate the Aeneid requires one to enter, imaginatively at least, inTO a view of history that was long taken for granted in the West, but that today is unimaginable for most people.
The real subject of the poem is the coming to be of Rome and for Virgil and his hearers, this is an event of unique and almost cosmic significance that changes the world forever. An aura surrounds Aeneas, because he is the Rome-Bearer, a man with a divine calling and a mission.
Now this presupposes that history can be viewed as having a direction, marked out by a series of unique and irreversible events. My schoolmasters in the 1950s shared this belief. For them, the course of history had been shaped by the fall of the Western Empire, the christening of the new nations in the Dark Ages, the recovery of ancient learning and the reformation of religion in the sixteenth century and the progress of freedom and enlightenment. I am not saying they were right about all or any of these events; the point is that they believed they were of enduring importance, in shaping the present and the future.
No wonder Christians found Virgil’s vision congenial: the art and literature of Christendom is replete with the vision of salvation history, Creation, Fall and Redemption. What Christian can read unmoved the Fourth Eclogue, with its “Incipe parve puer risu cognoscere Matrem,” [Begin, baby boy through a smile to know your mother] destined to become the leit-motif of European art?
Recently, I saw a piece of graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne, in Paris - « Le futur n’a plus d’avenir » - The future no longer has a future. That, I fancy is the inevitable conclusion of those for whom the past has no significance.
"After almost 40 years as a faculty member at a university I can say that the only thing preventing more conservative academiocs is simply this: FACULTY SELF SELECT THEIR COLLEAGUES ON THE BASIS NOT ONLY OF SCHOLARSHIP BUT ALSO OF POLITICS."
And as expected, Professor Tony Esolen's brief analysis was spot-on.
But seriously, this is not revelatory news. Most folks know that there's a liberal bias in the media, a liberal bias in Hollywood, and a liberal bias in academia. The liberals have political and institutional power. Duh.
One morning, I was working in the stables with two schoolgirls, (aged 16/17) who come to ride my horses and help out. They were studying the “Age of Revolutions,” for their History special subject and somehow we got onto the topic of Bonapartism.
Yes, they knew all about Bonapartism & Napoléon III: “Stalemate in the class struggle” – “Bourgeoisie surrenders political power, in return for protection of its socio/economic power” – “Bourgeois ‘freedom’ is the freedom to exploit the labour of others for profit” – “The independent Executive: Its instruments the déclassé Bohemians of all classes” – “Professional army made up of the Lumpen proletariat” &c, &c
It was like listening to children saying their catechism.
“And who were their opponents?” I asked
“The proletariat, in alliance with the revolutionary intelligentsia,” they replied, in chorus.
“And the peasants?”
“They had no community, no national bond and no political organization,” they intoned, as one.
For their teachers, there is nothing to the right of the Socialist parties, except greed and eccentricity.
