Apostasy in the Ivory Tower
In the September 24 edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education, there is an article entitled "Conservatives in a Liberal Landscape" (subscription required). Of particular interest, it quotes my former Contracts II professor, Scott Burnham, who visits Cardozo every summer to teach the course. Burnham is quoted as saying that "[o]ur law school [University of Montana] has a culture where it's not receptive to an exchange of view...We're a small faculty, so I think Rob is perceived as rocking the boat." 'Rob' is Robert Natelson, another Montana law professor. Burnham, who according to the article disagrees with Natelson's politics, seems sensitive to a problem that many face in academia. For those that may not be aware of the Constitutional Law class debacle at the University of Montana's law school, here it is, very briefly:
Natelson, a tenured law professor at Montana, wanted to teach the Constitutional law course. He writes on the subject and the position was open, so he sought to teach the course. He was denied the opportunity - for the fourth time. After the university agreed to bring the matter before an independent mediator, who found Natelson had been treated unfairly, he has been slated to teach the course, at least temporarily. The problem with Natelson? Quite simple: he says things like "too much of our economy is controlled by government," and describes himself as having "a strong attraction for human freedom."
The article goes on to talk about other professors that allege similar experiences: Berkeley law professor John Yoo and Smith College economist James Miller (though he, too, has a J.D.). Notwithstanding The Chronicle's emphasis on law schools, I have to say that I think the problem is far more widespread. If anything, I'd say (off the cuff) that it might not be quite as bad in law schools because legal education is perhaps seen as too inextricably tied to politics and thus law schools try to draw 'superstars' of any political persuasion. The articles provides data on over 55,000 faculty, where "48 percent identified themselves as either liberal or far left; 34 percent as middle of the road, and only 18 percent as conservative or far right." Interesting to note that no category seems to readily house libertarian or other views, but that's an issue for another post.
Also quoted in the article is Erwin Chemerinsky (whose Constitutional Law treatise sits in front of me even at this moment). What does Chemerinsky have to say? "At a time when the president is conservative, the Supreme Court is controlled by a conservative majority, when both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, it's hard to see this as a time of liberal dominance." But don't the circumstances Chemerinsky takes notice of highlight just how countermajoritarian the self-reported leftward dominance (i.e. 48%) actually is, but in no way disprove the fact that there is a dominance. Chemerinsky is missing a fundamental step to make a proper syllogism. If the White House, Supreme Court (and I strongly question this), and Congress are "controlled by Republicans" AND university faculty and administration were appointed by these bodies, then he might be able to tenably say that there was no "liberal dominance." Instead, the astute reader immediately realizes that Chemerinsky in fact highlights something we all know: academics are an elite group that in no way reflect the sentiment of the general population.
Natelson, a tenured law professor at Montana, wanted to teach the Constitutional law course. He writes on the subject and the position was open, so he sought to teach the course. He was denied the opportunity - for the fourth time. After the university agreed to bring the matter before an independent mediator, who found Natelson had been treated unfairly, he has been slated to teach the course, at least temporarily. The problem with Natelson? Quite simple: he says things like "too much of our economy is controlled by government," and describes himself as having "a strong attraction for human freedom."
The article goes on to talk about other professors that allege similar experiences: Berkeley law professor John Yoo and Smith College economist James Miller (though he, too, has a J.D.). Notwithstanding The Chronicle's emphasis on law schools, I have to say that I think the problem is far more widespread. If anything, I'd say (off the cuff) that it might not be quite as bad in law schools because legal education is perhaps seen as too inextricably tied to politics and thus law schools try to draw 'superstars' of any political persuasion. The articles provides data on over 55,000 faculty, where "48 percent identified themselves as either liberal or far left; 34 percent as middle of the road, and only 18 percent as conservative or far right." Interesting to note that no category seems to readily house libertarian or other views, but that's an issue for another post.
Also quoted in the article is Erwin Chemerinsky (whose Constitutional Law treatise sits in front of me even at this moment). What does Chemerinsky have to say? "At a time when the president is conservative, the Supreme Court is controlled by a conservative majority, when both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, it's hard to see this as a time of liberal dominance." But don't the circumstances Chemerinsky takes notice of highlight just how countermajoritarian the self-reported leftward dominance (i.e. 48%) actually is, but in no way disprove the fact that there is a dominance. Chemerinsky is missing a fundamental step to make a proper syllogism. If the White House, Supreme Court (and I strongly question this), and Congress are "controlled by Republicans" AND university faculty and administration were appointed by these bodies, then he might be able to tenably say that there was no "liberal dominance." Instead, the astute reader immediately realizes that Chemerinsky in fact highlights something we all know: academics are an elite group that in no way reflect the sentiment of the general population.
Categories: