Letter to the Editor of the New York Times:
When the 'Spreadsheet People' Go to Vote
Published: September 14, 2004, Tuesday
To the Editor:
David Brooks notes that academics give overwhelmingly to Democrats and
attributes that to their mushy post-modernism, as opposed to those more
rational ''number'' people in business.
At M.I.T., 94 percent of campaign giving was to the Democrats. What does
Mr. Brooks think the people at M.I.T. do? Does he think that the electrical
engineers, computer scientists, roboticists, biologists and economists run
screaming from numbers and sit around reading Derrida?
Academia is full of very smart people earning very little money relative to
what they could earn. They are curious people, dedicated to pursuing the
truth and teaching others.
Business is full of very smart people whose sole responsibility is to make
money, for stockholders and themselves. The first group supports Democrats.
The second group supports Republicans. Draw your own conclusion.
Andrew Milne
Atlanta, Sept. 11, 2004
Published: 09 - 14 - 2004 , Late Edition - Final , Section A , Column 5 ,
Page 22
4 comments:
Doesn't Noam Chomsky teach at MIT?
Theories about liberal political tendencies in academia usually hinge on a few points:
1) Academics spend so much of their mental energy on their particular field that they cannot focus properly on anything outside of that field. (Stephen Jay Gould is a great example of this. Despite being quite intelligent, he believed in communism, an ideology that's such a bad idea that it would be laughable were it's history not so horrific).
2) Academics are group thinkers. It doesn't take a genius to see how conservatives are treated on college campuses. It should be no surprise that many choose to be a lefty instead of being labeled a sexual harassing Nazi.
3)Academics work in a sheltered environment (again, for lefties) that distorts their view of the real world. (i.e. when was the last time, if ever, that acadamia had to produce something that didn't go in a book?)
Much, much too more here: http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/01/TeleologyandSolipsism.shtml
Yes, Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at M.I.T (and easily the most renowned linguist in the world).
I'm not sure how Stephen Jay Gould is a "great example" of ignoring the outside world to focus on one's own field. On the contrary, Gould used his extraordinary intellect to comment on a diverse array of social issues. His commitments ran the gamut from zoology to evolution to dinosaurs to cognition. The anthithesis of a myopic, overly specialized academic.
Neither am I sure what you mean by "they cannot PROPERLY focus on anything outside of that field." It sounds like you mean: "they come to conclusions that differ from my own opinions." When someone posesses a different opinion or articulates a different point of view, that does not necessarily signify an inability to "properly focus." Rather it means they differ.
I was a full-time college student from 1992-2002 and have been a full-time faculty member ever since and in those 12+ years never found academics to be group thinkers. On the contrary, I have heard academics espouse points of view that range from trendy to edgy to mainstream to obscure to pragmatic to radical to antiquated to groundbreaking. In fact, at times I have heard academics espouse positions that find precious few outlets in the culture--and that takes guts, especially when they're called names (e.g., "improper") for it.
To suggest that those who differ with you only think that way due to "groupthink" is the worst kind of argument ad hominem: 'you're just a liberal because you're scared to stand up and be a conservative.' Really? Is that your best argument against Noam Chomsky?! That he's been plowed by his colleagues? That argument will probably not take you far. It takes rigor to make an argument that 1) stakes out a position, and 2) provides evidence. It's easy to stake out a position and then say that those who disagree are dumb or weak or immoral. Although, sadly, much of our political discourse follows the latter path.
Here at Miami, we've recently hosted lectures or presentations by Pat Buchanan, P.J. O'Rourke, and the Bush twins. There were no riots on the quad and nobody spray-painted "sexual-harassing Nazis" of the cars of attendees. There is a chapter of the College Republicans. A chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ. When I moderated a campus forum on the Iraq war that featured representatives from both the military AND Cinci's anti-war movement, groupthink and/or the oppressively liberal climate didn't stop a campus secretary from calling me anti-American.
Sheltered? Some in the private sector exist in cubicles, working on individual computers. Here's what my "sheltered" academic life looks like: I interact with three seperate groups of students each semester (15-23 in each group). I read their writing on a daily basis. I disseminate much of my research through public presentations at academic conferences. Some of my research involves collaborative writing with my colleagues (and, in one cause, one of my students). Further, part of my tenure requirements (in addition to research and teaching) include "performing service to the community," a requirement that I've met by tutoring in a local GED program, leading writing workshops and teacher research workshops for K-12 language arts teachers, and moderating civic events/lectures/debates that attract an audience beyond the campus community. The myth of the sheltered academic is just that: a myth.
Things that academics have produced that didn't go in a book: vaccinations for deadly diseases, editorials for local op-ed pages, workshops for K-12 educators, intellectual forums and debates, recitals and theatrical performances.
I'm sorry! You sure set me straight on my thinking that there was any left wing bias at colleges!
Sure, glad to clarify. The fallacious thinking that leads to the conclusion about left-wing bias is not uncommon. In fact, a nation hopped up on corporate news networks and an anti-intellectual presidential administration can easily be led down that path. The fallacy involves making the leap from the fact that there are more liberal college professors to the conclusion that there is hence a liberal "bias." More liberals choose to become academics--but that doesn't *necessarily* mean they create a biased environment.
Is it a problem that more liberals than conservatives become college professors? A free-market, anti-affirmative action stance would say that the market has spoken and we should leave it alone. If you believe that other interventions are necessary to affect demographic change, does that make you a "commie"?
Post a Comment