In a surprisingly fine editorial last week about the crisis at Columbia University, the New York Times observed that a university report investigating student complaints about Middle East studies “is deeply unsatisfactory” because it was “so limited.” The “Ad Hoc Grievance Committee Report,” the paper observed, focused on faculty intimidation of students, ignoring that the students primarily resented “stridently pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli bias on the part of several professors.”
That the Columbia administration preferred to deal with bad classroom habits rather than on the deeper question of faculty bias was an obvious self-protective gambit. The former can be dealt with by rapping some knuckles. The latter requires a systemic review of university practices, taking up such delicate issues as the exclusion of diverse points of view and possible political bias in hiring.
These larger issues arise because, as surveys consistently find, the Arab-Israeli conflict is but one facet of the larger Left-Right debate. Simply put, the Left consistently bristles with hostility to Israel and the Right sympathizes with it.
The Colombia report (which, incidentally, acknowledges that the current crisis began as a result of Campus Watch’s research) should have dealt instead with the rapid and wholesale shift of its faculty — including Middle East specialists — to the Left.
By coincidence, this left-ward surge is the topic of a just-published investigation, “Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty.” Ponderous title aside, this rigorous and important study contains much of interest.
Using such methodologies as cross-tabulating political self-descriptions and multiple regression analysis, the three co-authors — Stanley Rothman (emeritus professor of government at Smith College), S. Robert Lichter (professor of communication at George Mason University), and Neil Nevitte (professor of political science at the University of Toronto) — answer two questions:
Rothman, et al. find that, even when professional accomplishments are equal, a more liberal outlook predicts “a significantly higher quality of institutional affiliation.” They even assign a number to this liberal edge: “The ideological orientations of professors are about one-fifth as important as their professional achievements in determining the quality of the school” they work for. This means, Robert Lichter told an interviewer, “Republicans get worse jobs than Democrats.”
Conservative complaints about “liberal homogeneity in academia deserve to be taken seriously,” the authors conclude. They also state that their findings “suggest strongly that a leftward shift has occurred on college campuses in recent years, to the extent that political conservatives have become an endangered species in some departments.”
Endangered species? In the more pungent observation by David Horowitz, “Universities are a left wing monolith these days. A conservative professor, or a Republican or evangelical Christian professor, is as rare as a unicorn.” A Harvard Crimson article acknowledges that the Rothman study implies that “Kremlin on the Charles” might in fact be accurate when applied to Harvard.
However solid its research, the Rothman team’s work is not likely to receive much of a hearing on campus. Rosemary G. Feal, executive director of the Modern Language Association, responded to its findings with predictable outrage: “It boggles my mind the degree to which this is rubbish.”
Assuming that Feal’s reaction will be the predominant one, the job of creating political balance in Columbia and other universities will require more than nicely asking professors to hire conservatives. It will take a concentrated and protracted effort by stakeholders — alumni, students, parents of students, legislators, and others — to reclaim an institution that has become a fortress for the Left.