Academia Has Little Viewpoint Diversity
How this happened and why it must change
ACADEMIA HAS LITTLE VIEWPOINT DIVERSITY
How this happened and why it must change
Given all the talk about viewpoint diversity and the fact that I have published in the area of academic bias, I’d like to offer four observations on these topics.
First, as to what viewpoint diversity means. I, and others, have produced evidence of political and religious discrimination in academia. It is not, as some would say, “Well, I just do not want to hire someone who is a sexist or racist.” The evidence shows that merely knowing someone is a Republican or an Evangelical will convince a nontrivial percentage of individuals that he or she should not be hired. That is textbook discrimination where a person’s social identity in and of itself is the cause of discrimination.
Second, this discrimination is part of what limits the scope of what we can study. Allow me one simple example. Since 2016, there has been a ton of research on white conservatives and Christians. The vast majority of it is critical of those groups, likely because they were key to Trump’s first electoral victory.
You know who we have not studied with a critical eye? White progressives. Oh, but those people are not bigots, right? Well, how do you know that without studying them? Indeed, one of the knocks against conservatives is how fearful they supposedly are, and yet I have a paper under review showing that progressives are more fearful than conservatives.
So let’s stop with the foolish “Do we need to include the perspective of Nazis?” excuse for the artificially low numbers of conservatives among the faculty. Very real research questions are being left on the table because different perspectives have been shut down.
Third, when people are only surrounded by people who think like them, there is a strong tendency that they will be overconfident in their assessments. I am not saying there are no arguments over contested ideas in academia. I am saying that the scope of the arguments is narrow because of the viewpoints that are not allowed in.
In my example above, it becomes easy to blame just about all social conflict on white conservatives/Christians, which is what most of the work on these topics does. By all means, we need assessment of those groups, and perhaps they are more responsible for our social conflict than white progressives. But if they are not disproportionately responsible, or if the responsibility is close to equally distributed, this will be hard to see in the modern academy because nearly everyone agrees reflexively that the responsibility is mostly on the conservatives. Unless you put your argument into the fire for critique, you will not know whether you have a sound argument or not.
Fourth and finally, some have talked about how academics have made themselves vulnerable by pissing off half the country, and thus the resources that make our work possible are at stake. That is a valid consideration as we look at viewpoint diversity: more viewpoint diversity could help our bottom line. I prefer the other reasons given above since those are more centered morally and can lead to better science. However, if a practical, financial motive driven by the threat of the cutting off of funds is what works, then so be it.
However we get there, more viewpoint diversity will better allow us in academia to talk to the half of the electorate that voted for Trump (for the record, I have never voted for him nor will I ever vote for him). Even if we disagree with people, we have to learn how to communicate with them and stop seeing them in terms of dehumanizing stereotypes. What better way than to have some conservatives, Christians, and Trump voters on the faculty?
Dr. George A. Yancey is a Professor of Sociology at Baylor University. He has published books and research articles on the topics of institutional racial diversity, racial identity, academic bias, progressive Christianity, and anti-Christian hostility. His books include Compromising Scholarship, What Motivates Cultural Progressives (with David A. Williams), There Is No God (with David A. Williams), So Many Christians, So Few Lions (with David A. Williams), Transcending Racial Barriers: Toward a Mutual Obligations Approach (with Michael O. Emerson), and Beyond Racial Gridlock: Embracing Mutual Responsibility. His previous publications in the Journal of Free Black Thought include “What Is Antiracism and What Is the Problem with It?,” “The Future of DEI,” “Black Identity vs. Christian Identity,” and “Conservatives Are Having Their George Floyd Moment.” He appeared on the Free Black Thought Podcast in an episode titled “Can DEI Be Fixed?” He maintains a personal website, a YouTube channel called “shatteringparadigms,” and an X account.
I have been a tenured professor, a dean of a professional school, and a regent. I have come to the reluctant conclusion that the way forward must include burning most academic institutions to the ground. The views & behaviors of faculties are too entrenched and to difficult to change, and their control of the university system too strong, to change the university in a reasonable amount of time such as 10 or twenty years. In truth, it has taken 75 years for faculty to achieve this level of control. Without radical action, we should expect it would take longer to unwind. The mishandling of the educational system and the poor education outcomes are directly the responsibility of faculties. It is university faculties of Edication and their graduates that have driven the changes to the model of K-12 education and created the widespread failure that it has become. I've seen recent graduates of universities I held with some regard not able to write a simple declarative sentence and who's knowledge of history and philosophy is so biased and so narrow as to not constitute education at all but is more akin to religious dogma. The faculties will neither recognize their mistakes, the poor outcomes their ideas have generated nor modify them on their own. They do not recognize the value of intellectual diversity and will not make any changes to accommodate it. I love the turn of phrase I saw here of calling them the Professoriat with its allusion to governmental departments in the Soviet Union because that is a fair description of the way they operate in my experience complete with show trials and re-education sessions. It's heartbreaking really.
As for voting for Trump, I didn't vote for him in 2016. But I sure didn't vote for Hilary, who is a professional charlatan. I voted for Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate.
But what followed put fear into my heart. I saw progressives systematically weaponize our judicial system, our educational system, and our media in an effort to destroy Trump and his supporters. I've seen dirty politics going all the way back to LBJ, but I've never seen anything that came close to this.
I resolved that I would do whatever I could do to destroy the progressive movement. They are the enemy of the very idea of what our constitution attempts to achieve. I've often said, and will keep saying it, I was never drawn to Trump, progressives pushed me to him.