Because conservatism relies heavily on traditional ways of thinking. Indeed, that is what conservativism MEANS. Intellectual inquiry compels you to investigate those ways of thinking and perhaps come to new conclusions. Consider, for example, the issue of gay marriages. The conservative reaction is to argue that marriage “has always been” between a man and woman, and therefor “should” remain to be so. The liberal explores the issue, considers that traditions may not be compatible with equality and justice, and comes to a different conclusion.
eli: Professors in law “lean to the right”? You’ve gotta be kidding me.
At my alma mater, I took con law from a conservative. He was know as the conservative member of the faculty – i.e., the only conservative member of the faculty.
Anecdotal evidence.
And perhaps not reach new conclusions, either; intellectual inquiry does not mean wishy-washiness on ideas. Nor does conservative, as I think the term is understood politically, mean what it means in every-day parlance.
The larger point, of course, is as follows.[ul][li]Faculty as a whole, says Chomsky (and I agree) is much like society as a whole, leaning neither to one extreme nor the other.[/li][li]Faculty members are well educated (and presumably imbued with the associated spirit of intellectual curiousity), else they’d not be on the faculty to begin with. It’s hard to be a high school drop out teaching at a public university.[/li][li]Education and intellectualy inquiry thus being a hallmark of faculty members, and faculty being centrist overall, the conclusion that education and intellectul inquiry is exclusively or even primarily liberal trait is ludicrous. That faculty is centrist and that intellectual inquiry is liberal seem to me to be incompatible statements.[/ul][/li]
I want to add that one reason faculty may come across as strongly liberal, as I think on it, is the internationality of educators. Many faculty members I know are European, and since Europe leans more left than America does, all other things being equal, I’d expect European faculty members to lean left as well.
I think that how much intellectual curiousity is applied to current events, political issues, history, and social issues depends on the discipline. Scientists, engineers, and other professors may be brilliant investigators in their fields, but have rather humdrum and status-quo sentiments on anything else.
Oh, piffle. Perhaps you haven’t actually talked to much in the way of science faculty recently. “Humdrum and status-quo sentiments” indeed.
It seems that what you mean to say that curiousity about current events and social issues is a liberal trait; such a position seems equally untenable to me, but apparently since I’m only a scientist my opinion about current events, society, and the like is humdrum, status quo, and uninformed.
I didn’t suggest that had humdrum, status quo opinions because they were scientists. I suggested that spending investigation into some fields doesn’t necessarily cary over to enlightment on social and political issues, i.e., that they don’t have insightful opinions because they are scientists. Some of them might. On the other hand, I am embarassed by social scientists who think they’re qualified to talk about hard science topics, so it goes both ways.
And my job has me talking to faculty from every discipline, every day. The only generalization I would make is that they are all opinionated.
Ah. I would agree that being a scientist doesn’t give one an insightful opinion about social issues; I don’t see that being a professor of literature or classics gives one any much more insight. If you want insight into matters of economic policy, talk to an economist, not a doctor or an historian. And so on for any other topic one might care to ask about, whether medicine or engineering or philosophy.
In short: being well educated, curious, and so forth is neither a liberal trait nor a conservative trait. Similarly, having an informed and considered opinion about, say, drug laws, or abortion, or environmental policy is neither a liberal trait nor a conservative trait. There are plenty of informed, intelligent conservatives in the world, and plenty of vapid irreflective idiotic conservatives in the world. The same can be said of liberals.
I honestly don’t see why people toss out these trivially silly generalizations like “liberal = intelligent” or “conservative = practical.” Intelligent, reasoned, and inquisitive people shouldn’t stoop to such shoddy thinking.
By the way, curiousity about current events and social issues is NOT a liberal trait, but it is a causal thing with the results of making a person somewhat more liberal minded. Anyway, the movement/resistence is practically built into the definition of liberal and conservative so I don’t understand the objections. I also think it’s nakedly obvious that conservatives are anti-intellectual, as their approach to education is clear testimony: arguing against teaching multiple viewpoints, abhorance of meaningful assessment instead of cut-and-dried standardized tests, etc.
I don’t see why we would be forced to conclude that people become liberal because they’re exposed to current events; why should we? People’s politics change all the time, and attributing the change to a more liberal viewpoint to being smarter and better educated is self-congratulatory tripe.
I could say that people become more conservative because they learn to think deeply and carefully, but I recognize that to say this would be both patently stupid and offensive to the carefully thinking liberals of the world. And likewise, saying that people become more liberal because they learn about social issues is offensive to the well-informed conservatives of the world.
With regards to the movement/resistence thing: as I said before, I don’t think that has much to do with the way conservative and liberal are used in politics any more. Conservatives want to move on some issues and resist movement on others, and liberals do likewise. I thought Shodan illustrated that pretty aptly.
With regards to the last objection, you appear to have some confusion with regards to the words “some” and “all” or even “most.” Further, you appear to have confused “anti-intellectual” with “has different and perhaps archaic, even stupid, views on educational philosophy.” Agreeing with your viewpoint on standardized testing is hardly the defining trait of intellectualism.
So what you are saying is that some people can put in careful thought and still come to completely stupid conclusions. I don’t doubt it for a second.
I guess not too many people here have been to business school.
Colleges have a liberal slant because there is very little else for die-hard liberals to do professionally. What are they going to do? Become investment bankers, salesmen and accountants? Are they going to become economists where nearly every economic theory opposes liberal ideas as welfare, minimum wage laws, and so on? I don’t think so. So if you are a liberal arts major who isn’t interested in going to law school or working for a nonprofit and becoming a crusader, it’s back to school to eventually teach.
You are correct in that most liberals have moral character that makes them prefer to make a positive difference rather than a profit. And you are correct in suggesting that most economic theories are opposed to basic human rights.
By the way, are we to assume that these “economic theories” that teach people to oppose minimum wage and welfare are taught by liberal college professors?
(giggling) It’s hard to imagine anything more useless than the stuff I engineer except we get paid real well when I do it. I mean, nematodes are IMPORTANT. I don’t even have to ask my wife the medical person hung up on invertebrates to know that. Home theaters? Nope. So does that leave me as a liberal or a conservative? Or do they cancel out and make me the bit left of centrist that I am?
That said, this thread is so full of unverifiable anecdotes and mindless, knee-jerk opinion it has no place in Great Debates. It should have been moved to the Pit.
It may be that college graduates become more liberal as they pursue degrees simply because they are being indoctrinated. I personally knew several people who were totally apolitical when they entered university and exited well on the left. Professors are in a very powerful position to influence young minds, and they take full advantage of that.
:rolleyes:
Praying again?
:: Snort :: If it’s so easy to indoctrinate students, why the hell can’t I indoctrinate mine to turn in their papers on time, include a properly formatted bibliography, and not complain about getting a B+ when they wanted an A? I can assure you that most faculty members are much more interested in this stuff than in influencing their students’ political views. It is just possible that the people you know switched political affiliations of their own accord.
I don’t mean there’s a forced indoctrination, or even a planned one. It’s just that if a prof believes that the world works in a certain way, and teaches that viewpoint, some kids are going to pick up on it. If there are no conservative profs teaching the opposite, then the kids don’t get to hear opposing viewpoints, and are fed a consistent, steady stream of liberal ideas from people they highly respect. It can’t help but rub off on many of them.