BY JOHN K. WILSON
Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and a Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, issued a 195-page report, “Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination, and Self-Censorship” and published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Academic Freedom Is Withering.”
I don’t have time to fully analyze the entire report, so instead I’m just going to focus here on Kaufmann’s research about US academics and a few of the problems with his survey questions as well as the much deeper problem with his conclusions.
Perhaps the most dramatic finding in Kaufmann’s report is the one he tries the most to ignore: “17% of conservatives and 16% of centrists would discriminate against a leftist hire whereas only 14% of American academic leftists would discriminate against a conservative hire.” Yes, you read that right: Leftists discriminate against conservatives less than they are discriminated against. And centrists show a clear bias: “centrist American academics, who resemble conservative academics in discriminating nearly twice as much against the left as against the right.”
Kaufmann notes several studies of academics where the willingness of leftists to discriminate against conservatives “was equally matched by conservatives’ willingness to discriminate against liberals.”
Kaufmann’s surveys also indicate some surprisingly low levels of repressive responses to certain questions. Kaufmann asked, “If a staff member in your institution did research showing that greater ethnic diversity leads to increased societal tension and poorer social outcomes, would you support or oppose efforts by students/the administration to let the staff member know that they should find work elsewhere?”
This kind of question is what Kaufmann summarizes as support for “firing” an employee. Kaufmann’s wording includes several biases. First, he uses “staff member” rather than professor, and many faculty may be more likely to limit the freedom of administrators. More importantly, Kaufmann includes “efforts by students” to respond, not simply a firing by the administration. In addition, what Kaufmann describes in the question is not a firing at all. Urging someone to find work elsewhere may be rude, but it is not itself a violation of academic freedom. Despite the fact that this question is carefully manipulated to generate positive responses, only 7% of US social sciences and humanities faculty supported even this modest effort against a staffer. Only 8% agreed for questions about controversial right-wing research supporting the British empire, two-parent households, and reducing immigration.
For another question, imagining an initiative mandating diversity in reading lists, “only 3% recommended firing dissenters” who refuse to follow it. Kaufmann admits that these “findings reveal an important reservoir of support for academic freedom among staff at US universities.”
In another question, Kaufmann finds that US academics by a margin of 58% to 26% prioritize academic freedom over social justice.
Kaufmann also notes, “Overall, there is much less political discrimination in marking, with just 4% of North American academics openly admitting they would discriminate” in grading student papers.
While other data reported by Kaufmann is more disturbing, some of Kaufmann’s data has some serious problems. Because the surveys of American academics had relatively few conservatives, he did a survey of members of the National Association of Scholars (NAS), where he predictably found high levels of self-reported victimization. But this is a horribly biased sample to use. Many scholars join NAS precisely because they have experienced victimization, or believe they have. The NAS is simply in no way a representative sample of conservative academics. Notably, Kaufmann uses the NAS survey to try to present dire figures of repression. Kaufmann noted, “Half of NAS respondents reported psychological pressure from colleagues for their views and 36% said they experienced bullying for expressing them.” I’m skeptical when “psychological pressure” or “bullying” is claimed as an attack on academic freedom, when criticism over controversial political views is part of a free society and a free university.
Kaufmann noted, “There are also an unspecified number of disciplinary actions that have not been reported by the media, many of which are subject to privacy rules, but some of which are alluded to in comments I collected in my NAS survey, such as: ‘One professor at East Georgia State College was fired for ‘sexual harassment for disagreeing with the school’s sexual harassment policy.” In reality, the East Georgia case happened back in 2009, it was widely reported in the media, and the professor was reinstated: So perhaps it is not the best proof of a sudden new wave of unreported secret firings.
Kaufmann claims his study is “the most comprehensive survey-based investigation to date of academic and graduate student opinion on political discrimination, the punishment of academics for speech, and experiences of hostility and self-censorship for political beliefs.” But much of Kaufmann’s data actually belies his editorial claims of massive, systematic bias against conservatives.
Perhaps what’s most interesting about Kaufmann’s Wall Street Journal op-ed is that it in no way resembles the research report, which offers no real conclusions or recommendations for improving problems. By contrast, Kaufmann’s op-ed offers extreme clarity unburdened by any evidence that his proposals might work. It begins, “Academic freedom is in crisis on American campuses. Last year, the National Association of Scholars recorded 65 instances of professors being disciplined or fired for protected speech, a fivefold increase from the year before.” But the NAS database only began last year and is not a comprehensive resource for past firings nor an unbiased source of information.
Kaufmann concludes, “At this point, only a proactive approach can work, such as the policies recently announced in Britain, in which public universities are to be audited and potentially fined for academic freedom violations each year by the government. In the U.S., state or federal authorities must regulate public universities to ensure they protect the First Amendment rights of staff and students and don’t discriminate against political minorities. Unless reforms come from outside the academy, universities will continue to be monocultures in which conservative ideas aren’t given a fair hearing.”
But Kaufmann offers no evidence that government intrusion into faculty hiring will reduce political discrimination rather than increasing it. Kaufmann’s study shows that conservative and centrist faculty actually discriminate against leftists more than the reverse.
There are serious, albeit fairly rare, problems with political discrimination in academia, and we need to promote a culture in academia where people are judged based on their academic merit and never punished for their political opinions. But the best way to remove politics from academic hiring is not by increasing politically-imposed attacks on colleges.
@John K Wilson: Yes – your analysis and response to the Eric kaufmann 195 page report as well as the Wall Street op-ed is indeed worth noting. I also support your conclusion, that, ” the best way to remove politics from academic hiring is not by increasing politically-imposed attacks on colleges” Politics and political science have not become scientific endeavor – no matter the claims to the contrary. Humanity’s perception of reality is seriously flawed with the natural languages as the medium of communication and the statistical inference as the scientific tool of evidence. Academia has not done anything constructive for over a century despite all the goodwill available for its sustenance, funded primarily through unpaid student loans of several trillion dollars adding to the national debt. The future of humanity requires a massive overhaul of academic perceptions to sync with the discrete reality of nature from the imaginary analog one expressed in the popular literature and the popular scientific studies adopted by the society at large. The accounting and the financial systems perpetuate these myopia and there seems no end to this cultural stagnation.
“Kaufmann’s study shows that conservative and centrist faculty actually discriminate against leftists more than the reverse.”- well sort of….
I am one of those centrist faculty members who likely would have responded to the survey question in such a way that you would call it “discrimination”. ie a reluctance to hire someone with extreme leftist or progressive views…. That said, the reason is NOT because I necessarily “hate” progressives (my social circle of close friends and close family members includes many that I love dearly who are progressive, even though I avoid the more militant progressives at the fringes of that circle), it is just that I feel that these positions are often deeply naive and misguided. Far left progressives seem to find it virtuous to set up discriminatory policies that do not take into account personal circumstances, are not interested in engaging in data or evidence (even the collection of such evidence or helping folks who have trouble navigating the world due to their prior circumstances) is considered “racist” per Kendi) and find it appropriate to shove their ideology down people’s throats with no argument (because of course one is “racist’, “transphobic” or “sexist” if you disagree with any of it).
YES, I DO self censor in conservations with some in my progressive social circle, including at a online zoom cocktail hour last night, particularly when I am too tired to engage with feelings instead of information (happened last night where a very progressive acquaintance basically said that he was not interested in worrying about a “minority” of people being discriminated against because that would “fix” discrimination against a group he favored)….. It was actually pretty awful, and you can only push back so much…. I am also protecting myself here by posting under a pseudonym because pushing back against this stuff publically WOULD harm my career because it is “ist” you know (pick your favorite one).
In contrast, most conservatives in academia (not talking “proud boys” or Trumpian louts), are willing to engage in evidence based discussions and feel that policy should be based on evidence, not feelings or virtue signaling. Academic conservatives almost to a person also feel that it is important to make policies that are equitable that reward students/staff/faculty for objective accomplishments that correspond with the needs of employers/field of study, not wishful thinking They are concerned with treating people more broadly with respect, and judging people on accomplishments/circumstances, not superficial characteristics. Academic conservatives also mostly feel that politics should stay out of most parts of the university, particular areas where objective knowledge is in play ie fields where there are “right or wrong” answers like calculus or physics.
Another thing to note…. Progressives seem to find it appropriate to load up their cover letters/personal statements with long winded political diatribes about things completely irrelevant to the job they are being considered for, while centrists and conservatives stick to the point of how their credentials meet the job requirements (just saw this recently in a staff search I was involved in, I still dont get why a few applicants thought it was appropriate or relevant to go on about their commitment to progressive ideals for a job in scientific research). This means that in most cases I would have NO idea whether someone was conservative or centrist when considering them for a job, but OH BOY, extreme progressives seem incapable of not letting me know.
No, it’s not about reluctance to hire extremists or off the wall progressives, the cited statistic just referred to reluctance to hire leftists. Your biases are showing when you modify the significance to dismiss Wilson’s point.
Actually no. The point is that folks from the central 2/3 of the political spectrum know that talking politics in a hiring situation (and most of the time in the workplace) is 1) irrelevant to the job at hand and 2) is inappropriate. The extreme conservatives essentially dont exist in academia, while the extreme progressives are so convinced of the rightness of their cause that they have ZERO compunction about advocating discriminatory policies and creating uncivil and abusive work environments. So, it is “discrimination” to be reluctant to hire someone who will not be supportive of ALL of our students? Perhaps so, but I am as comfortable with that as not hiring a known serial sexual abuser or Klan member for similar reasons.
Discrimination against leftists does not only apply to situations that you refer to. In many social science and humanities fields leftists can easily be identified by their publications. As for your claim about leftists discriminating against students–you provide zero evidence that that happens and I know from experience that some “conservatives” have been doing so for many decades (see my comment on my own experience). All you are doing here is exposing your own biases by making assumptions about leftist faculty members.
Well, social science is a different deal where scholarship and politics are intertwined which makes things much more complicated. We all want to hire folks in our affinity group, in the life sciences for instance we are not hiring climate deniers or creationists too frequently. While that is much more fact based than alot of social science research, there is a tendency for progressive social scientists to avoid engaging data in many cases.
As for discrimination against students outside of that…. I think it comes down to the definition of “discrimination”. Is it OK to cherrypick folks for opportunities due to race? Well, the progressive would say yes, if it is the correct race (even “regular” progressives are usually fine with that) regardless of true disadvantage. This is the most common kind of discrimination in academia with hiring preferences going to genetics, not economic disadvantage or diversity…. Is it OK to set up policies to discriminate against men even though women are the majority of college students and in many fields have been the majority of doctoral graduates for decades now? I am a woman who has been in the room when the leadership of my professional organization sets up “women’s leadership” training instead of training for all of our young members. Is it OK to publicly deride the opinions of a devout religious person and attempt “reeducation”? I would say no, even though I am an avid atheist, as this sets up a hostile work environment for these folks. On the other hand, if such a devout religious person starts to proselytize or discriminate against those that they disagree with, I would be (and have been) the first to squash that behavior.
Putting “extreme” in front of leftists when that word isn’t in the initial quote describing the discrimination is really telling I suppose. Overall this is just such a disheartening thing for any professor to say about any slice of the political spectrum. The idea that there is any right/center/left coordinate that can be characterized as speaking out of naivety or feelings instead of evidence is something I have never heard any of my teachers insinuate and for that I am incredibly grateful. Every corner of the political spectrum has people that approach inquiries from a place of hurt, rage, hypocrisy and vanity as well as people who dedicate their lives to presenting their arguments by committing to rigorous methodologies. I have had pleasant, enriching and challenging interactions with students and professors from an unbelievably wide variety of backgrounds and points of view (everything from anarchists to libertarians to communists) so I would never sit quietly in a classroom if my professor spoke about centrists or right wingers in a comparatively condescending way. Even though I’m clearly a centrist, the “my side is rational the other side irrational” attitude is without a doubt disappointing to hear – especially given how pleasant my university experiences have been and how willing people are to engage with each other’s ideas instead of being this petty. To be honest it sounds like something you’d see in a YouTube comment section and not from someone dedicating their life to academia, just baffling really.
When I was an undergraduate I studied Chinese in order to prepare for graduate work in Chinese studies. A member of the faculty told me that given my well known leftist activities their department had a formal meeting to discuss whether I should be allowed to pass the course or should be failed to prevent me from making such a career. I was allowed to pass, but that’s what went on in the mid 1960s. So when “conservatives” complain about discrimination against them I always find it strange.
Pingback: Canaries in the coal mine: Kaufmann Report warns of ‘Academic Freedom in Crisis’ – Customercareal