Duke -- and other institutions -- devote resources to the first two because America has
a long and often ugly history of discrimination against ethnic minorities and women.
America decidedly does not have a long and ugly history of discrimination against
conservatives. Really, is that so hard to understand?
INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY....I'm getting pretty tired of incessant snarky comments
from conservatives about the
lack of "intellectual diversity" on university campuses:
Tom Smith points out what a dumb thing this is to say. He starts like this:
Here's more on the flap over Duke's diversity problem. "What’s clear is
that the present administration has pledged a commitment to racial, gender, and
intellectual diversity, but actual resources are only dedicated toward the first two
components."
Let me be the first to say that when I joined the chorus of people complaining about
discrimination against conservatives in academia, I had no idea that it would go on so
long that Kevin Drum would
get tired of it. (Via
instapundit. And a post well worth reading.) But I am sure he can understand that
it's very easy for this to happen. You're getting stepped on (just a metaphor! I don't
mean to say that getting discriminated against in employment is anything nearly as bad
as actually getting stepped on!), you complain, and next thing you know you have annoyed
the person stepping on you. What is there to do except say, so very sorry, maybe I
could polish your boots while I'm down here? And please feel free to use my head as a
place to put your drink.
The Calpundit post is worth citing because it is an illustration of a common liberal
mindset. Somehow, despite the liberal esteem for sincerity, they end up being
horrendously hypocritical. If "diversity" is the aim, then histories of discrimination
are irrelevant. Even if a historical discrimination is a legitimate reason for present
discrimination in the other direction, that is a reason entirely different from
diversity, and an honest person would admit that. Liberals are usually not honest.
A second problem, though, is the argument that past discrimination based on race and sex was much uglier, so we shouldn't worry about present discrimination against conservatism. If you don't see the flaw, here is a similar argument: "Hitler gassed the Jews in the 1940's. So it was really trivializing racism for Mississippi blacks in 1950 to complain about discrimination-- they were being treated far better than the Jews were."
What is remarkable is the liberal attitude that even if discrimination against conservatives (or whites, to return to race) occurs, it just doesn't matter. Or, we even see people arguing that conservatives ought to be discriminated against, an attitude similar to that of the people in teh 1850's who defended slavery as a positive good because blacks were inferior and had to be kept in their place.
It's hard to gauge the extent of discrimination in academia, but the posts above led me to think of a new approach. Suppose I had the following five PhD students on the job market this year, all equal in their academic credentials. Would I worry about it being hard to place any of them because of discrimination against them, or rejoice (secretly) about it being easy to place any of them because of discrimination in their favor?
Here are the students:
Bu-Hui Chen is a man from China.
Cheng Wu is a man from New York.
Dinah Smith is woman who was an active Nader supporter in
2000. She favors affirmative action and gay rights ordinances and opposed the war in
Iraq.
Eric Brown is black.
Frank Cohen is nonreligious Jew. He was an active Buchanan supporter
in 2000, opposes affirmative action and gay rights ordinances, and supported the war
in Iraq.
Albert Schmidt is an evangelical Christian who doesn't drink and goes to church twice a
week.
In the market for economics professors, I would worry most about Bu-Hui Chen and Cheng
Wu. Employers would be skeptical of their ability to speak English, and might not
even look at their applications. This would be a huge mistake in the case of Cheng Wu,
who is a native English speaker, and I would urge him to trumpet that fact first and
foremost, ahead of any claims about his intelligence or creativity.
Would I worry about widespread discrimination deeply ingrained in our society that would make it hard for Dinah and Eric to get jobs? Not for a minute. They'd surely benefit from discrimination in their favor. I'd push them at the better universities.
In economics, I wouldn't worry about politics or religion. It wouldn't matter significantly for Albert, Dinah, or Frank-- at least at research universities. At lower quality institutions, I'd recommend to them that they keep their politics and religion quiet, though, just in case someone who wasn't a real scholar might veto them.
I would realize that Albert and Frank would be at a disadvantage, being white males. I have personally heard of searches in which departments were told by deans they could only hire females, illegal as that might be, though I am happy to say that my own department has never had that kind of pressure. But what can you do? It's not so bad in economics that I'd recommend against a white male entering a Ph.D. programs, and my efforts are better spent fighting other evils than discrimination of this kind.
I recommend this exercise to you, my readers, since discrimination is different in different fields. I can well believe that Frank's politics and Albert's religion would hurt them in some fields, and even Frank's religion/race would hurt him in some places-- he had better not try to get a job in Saudi Arabia. Ask yourself who you would worry about if these were *your* proteges.
---And, a last thought-- perhaps you should ask yourself if these students *could* be your proteges. Would you object to being a mentor to any of them?
[in full at 04.03.09a.htm . Erasmusen@yahoo.com. ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.