Meditating on how the value of free speech eroded on college campuses, She writes,
For the most part, professors are people who have done well in school and never left it, staying to take on more power and prestige within that setting. Therefore I don’t think they are selected for courage, or for even necessarily for thinking for themselves (with exceptions, of course). For the most part, they have been very good at taking in information and then giving it back again, perhaps with a small advancement on current knowledge in a very circumscribed field. So there may be more people in academia who are selected for conformity, and they are less likely to buck the prevailing winds.
If you read my series on academic corruption, I cited three factors: government money; emasculated culture; and affirmative action.
Government money provided support for mediocrity and conformity.
Emasculated culture worked this way. Once upon a time, elite colleges were mostly male, with a culture of open competition. But open competition by definition should not have excluded women, so that colleges became more open to women, particularly in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But women are not naturally inclined to favor open competition, and as they became a larger and larger force on campus, open competition is no longer supported.
Affirmative action was supposed to improve outcomes for blacks while maintaining standards. It did neither.
I should add the element that Shelby Steele calls “white guilt.” No college administrator wants to be the one who presides over a revolt by a “marginalized” group. If you have to cave in on values that are fundamental to an institution of higher learning, then so be it.
No doubt she has accurately characterized many professors. But given the sweeping and uncharitable brush she paints with, I would have liked to see her at least gesture to some data. And/or make more than a passing aside to the different fields (e.g., sciences vs. humanities).
It was I who suggested the link. Professor Kling might have blogged it anyway, but I suggested it, too.
I would say that based on my experience it rings true. Because Neo is a blogger she doesn’t have to provide data. The data is out there. Do you deny that the data exists?
Eric Kaufmann discussed it the other day in an article at _City Journal. His work can be found elsewhere as well_.
https://www.city-journal.org/govt-must-regulate-universities-to-protect-free-speech
The research of Jonathan Haidt is relevant.
Additionally, there are attempts to compile a comprehensive list of persons who have been cancelled. That list is not hard to find.
I have not problem with your suggestion or Arnold’s blogging.
Of course she doesn’t “have to” provide data. I merely expressed a preference for it.
I am very familiar with the writings and research of Haidt. But I don’t think his work speaks directly to the assertions Neo made in the passage above.
you might be right. I will have to ponder. I found the article interesting, and many of the comments as well.
I echo your sentiment that it is interesting. I wouldn’t have commented if otherwise.
***Neo’s blog is my other must read, often comment blog.***
Did you look at her categories?
https://www.thenewneo.com/category/academia/
You probably won’t find too much hard data there, either. Lots of
anectdata.
A lot like Arnold’s posts.
Which most commenters mostly believe and comment their own similar experiences OR their contrary experiences.
But what is the kind of data that would make think most professors lack or have courage? Are there any of her descriptions that you disagree with?
You mention STEM, and economics has been less Woke than most humanities. Yet Arnold’s posts often note that economics is going that way.
And why.
Tom,
“But what is the kind of data that would make think most professors lack or have courage?” – I can’t decipher this, so it’s difficult to respond.
“Are there any of her descriptions that you disagree with?” I pre-emptively addressed this in my comment at 3:55pm.
ps, This is the second time in recent days that you have misrepresented my comments and/or not read them at all. I tend to start from a place of generosity and benefit of doubt giving, but I have my limits. If this pattern continues, I will not engage you in dialogue.
A) Professors lack courage;
B) Professors have courage.
Which statement is more true? What kind of data would be used to argue for one over the other?
Arnold quotes neo’s #4 point above. In her #1 point, neo states she’s not sure:
#1 Most people are afraid to speak up when their livelihood is threatened, and that’s not just people in academia. I’m not sure whether professors are less courageous than most, although they might be. But I don’t think that sort of commitment to liberty no matter what is common anywhere.
Most Free Speech supporters want current professors to fight more for Free Speech – to be more courageous, and less conforming to current untrue Woke beliefs.
Your comment below argues against neo who
” seems to be arguing that academics are more conformists in general”
whereas your experience makes you think they are less so. Big 5 personality profile data seems to support the idea that professors are less conformists. Tho you note they, like all in any culture, ” conform to the norms of [academic] culture.”
Irrespective of Big 5 traits, non-conformists oppose in practice some, tho not all, norms of their own culture.
Not all non-conformity is equal.
Allen Bloom from more 50 years ago:
They had made careers out of saying how badly the German professors [during the Nazi era] had reacted to violations of academic freedom. This was all light talk and mock heroics, because they had not measured the potential threats to the university nor assessed the doubtful grounds of academic freedom.
This continues to be unproductive. From my perspective, these are the key reasons why:
1) It’s difficult to engage productively when the topic keeps being shifted. conformity != courage. I thought we were discussing the former.
2) You want to paint with a roller. I want to paint with a #10 brush.
3) Your primary mode of engagement is polemically. My primary mode of engagement is scientific. (note: this is descriptive, not judgmental)
As evidence, you write:
A) Professors lack courage;
B) Professors have courage.
Which statement is more true? What kind of
data would be used to argue for one over the
other?
In my engagement mode, this framing is useless. Among other things, it lacks precision and is internally incoherent (your assertions don’t lend themselves to data). Hence any response would necessarily be useless.
I think that a scientific mode of engagement is the best way to address this topic (and to discuss possible solutions). I suspect you disagree. If my suspicion is accurate, then I further suspect that neither of us are willing to shift modes. If my further suspicion is accurate, then I’m inclined to step away from this “discussion.”
There have been multiple posts on this topic, each with “corruption” in the title.
Each time, the underlying argument has instead pointed to evolving changes in marginal incentives which have degraded quality of education. Nothing close to an argument of corruption has been offered. A “selection for conformity” argument has nothing to do with corruption.
If your reason for existence is to pursue truth, to fairly consider all evidence that bears on the truth, and to rationally disagree–and if you then don’t do those things but instead become a club for enforcing conformity and trying to cancel those who disagree, it seems reasonable to say you have been corrupted.
I’ve never worked in academia, so I cannot say for sure, but I doubt the typical college professor is hired and managed under such clear and unambiguous terms, or makes such a pledge.
Universities have customers, and internal politics, and professors have their personal motivations just like everyone else, in addition to idealistic notions about searching for truth. It may make them disappoint you, but it doesn’t make them corrupt. Lots of people naturally are attracted towards conformity.
Corruption requires substantive dishonesty, not just mediocrity or lack of courage.
For what its worth, I think this is precisely what the larger problem is. Modern social media is flattening out our depth perception and making outrage out of simple human mediocrity. Sad bureaucrats and risk averse college staff become the deep state and corrupt academia.
As we endlessly grow and specialize, the marginal incentives get tougher to keep in line with larger aspirations. The truth seems really important, but making sure it gets paid for isn’t so easy. Everything here makes sense as a marginal decision. You may see the academic sector as doing less for society and you’re probably right, but that isn’t what the money and the customers are actually telling them they want.
I agree, in that I would find the argument more persuasive if “corruption” and “emasculation” were replaced by more modulated words.
The pressures you speak of do exist, but are not the entire picture.
I see two ways to incentivize college administrators to stand up to these “marginalized” groups. One is for alumni whose degrees lose their value because their school does these shenanigans to sue the school for breaching an implied warranty of reputation. (This theory may not fly in court, but to refuse to donate to the school and publicly tell them why may have the same effect.)
The second would be for the courts to shut down the Department of Education, which has no constitutional right to exist, and abolish the subsidies, scholarships, and loans that it grants. Education is not in the list of Congress’ enumerated powers. And schools that have to find their funding in the marketplace will have to answer to consumers about the value they offer.
As you hint at in the first way, neither of these strike me as particularly plausible. Do you have any ideas that might gain some actual traction? (honest question, not intended as snark)
I think this notion of “conformity” needs to be interrogated. The OP suggests that academics are more conformist at the trait level. But perhaps we should also think about conformity as context dependent. If the academy is a culture, then it’s self evident that members of that culture (ie, academics) conform to the norms of said culture. That is what it means to be a member of a culture. The same holds for members of any culture, including business, leisure, religious, etc.
But the OP seems to be arguing that academics are more conformists in general (perhaps by nature), regardless of context. That strikes me as debatable. Indeed, although the literature is somewhat mixed, a number of studies have found that certain personality traits reliably predict conformity (as a general construct).
From the Big 5, low neuroticism and high agreeableness predict more conformity, whereas high extraversion and high openness predict less conformity. I don’t know the data on Big 5 and college professors, but my experience tells me they tend to more closely resemble the “less conformity” traits than the “more conformity” traits.
Universities have a constitution that lacks adequate checks against conformity. Specifically, Faculty governance lacks adequate external checks against (a) Faculty self-cloning in forward academic personnel decisions (‘appointments & promotions’), and (b) Faculty distortion of curriculum for sectional or ideological ends.
See chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, & 8 in Magness & Brennan, Cracks in the Ivory Tower: The Moral Mess of Higher Education (Oxford U. Press, 2019) for an account of incentives, governance, and corruption in academe.
Trustees lack adequate incentives (and legitimacy in the eyes of Faculty) to act as a strong check on self-cloning and curricular corruption. Parents feel remote and fear the constitution of academe; partake eagerly in the status competition associated with rankings of selective colleges and universities; and (reasonably) care much more about the student body as a peer group, than about Faculty as epistemic role models. Should alumni care about the drift of epistemic virtues in academe, they face insurmountable information and collective-action problems.
American universities are the envy of much of the world. There is a conformity equilibrium. And there are steep barriers to entry for new, high-quality universities. Therefore, it’s hard to identify Archimedean points for changing the constitution of academe to add effective checks against corruption, whilst preserving academic independence.
To end on an upbeat note: The system is decentralized. Extant heterodox or niche institutions hear and there might flourish and stimulate emulation and experimentation.
Another aspect under what Arnold labels “emasculation” is that the juicy low-hanging research fruit has been picked. While the press still invents its Scientist-Hero of the day, the heroism does not reach the level of Watson and Crick. More often it is Wansink.
I don’t know, there’ve been some spectacular scientific successes over the last few years. That said, I agree that scientists should not be made into heroes. They are humans, warts and all. But to imply that most of them are in a league with Wansink is really unfair. There’s a big difference between being mediocre and being fraudulent.
Tyler Cowen illustrates this corruption perfectly with his typical “when my side misbehaves, it’s your fault for not stopping us.”
“In any case, for all the bickering over inflation, the real news to me is that the Republicans just didn’t try very hard to fight it. Partly they are left with few good arguments after their own fiscal profligacy. Partly they are consumed with their own internal squabbles. And partly their own pollsters/advisors told them the thing is going to be pretty popular, at least initially and perhaps always.”
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/03/the-covid-19-relief-bill.html
The Republicans voted against it. How emotive a dying swan does it take to get points from the East German judge from GMU?
+1 … or is it a Win for Edgar over Tyler?
Neo, too, has long been talking about the decline in education, but focusing much more on the Gramscian march thru the institutions.
Personnel is policy.
This is an alternate, true view of what’s been happening.
Colleges are bureaucratic, and follow the Iron Law – with those dedicated to the Institution and gaining power over it taking over all the internal power from those most interested in Goals of Education.
Democrats have essentially taken over the universities since even before the 1987 Allen Bloom blockbuster The Closing of the American Mind
Great long summary here.
https://theclosingoftheamericanmind.com/
Colleges putting “activism” over “critical thinking” is corruption.
Colleges using rationalizations to support untrue statements is corruption.
Colleges promoting Big Lies (on racism & sexism) is corruption.
Colleges practicing discrimination while promoting anti-discrimination laws is corruption, or at least disgusting hypocrisy.
Arnold’s true view is more succinct (which I like! but no points from FIT):
three factors: government money; emasculated culture; and affirmative action.
Government money provided support for mediocrity and conformity.
It would be good to be honest about how the Dems in control of colleges have been discriminating against hiring Republicans since 1987, or earlier … FDR? WW I?
The standards have certainly gone down for academics.
Yet the market value of credentials from top schools has continued to increase — and giving from alumni to top colleges has continued to increase.
So the college Presidents and decision makers have been making the right market-based decisions.
They need to be sued, and lose, on Free Speech issues. There needs to be required more Reps hired in order to continue enjoying tax-free education org status.
Harvard is a giant hedge fund, with a college front organization.
Folks, it’s about courage and strength in numbers. Without this, we will continue to look like a bunch of losers.
We are finally starting to see some traction…please get on board.
https://www.fairforall.org/
https://academicfreedom.org/