'Liberal' Academia

September 13, 2006

            We have all heard about notoriously “liberal” college professors. They are all radical atheists who indoctrinate our students into hating America. These beliefs are driving a serious movement to abolish tenure and academic freedom in our universities.

            Now, I am a college professor. I have tenure. (Oh, and I’m also a liberal Democrat.) So I’m a little biased. But this is very scary stuff. It perpetuates a willingness to emphasize ideology over evidence, and this can only harm us in the long run.

            Most people do not understand the role of academia. Tenure seems to be nothing more than job protection. Academic freedom seems to be nothing more than a rationale to do whatever one wants in the classroom. But these are bedrock principles of modern democratic society.

            Academia is about the pursuit of truth. Period. It is not “liberal” in the contemporary political sense of that term. The better term is “modern.” Academia is a modern institution, based on principles like reason, the scientific method, logic, and evidence. It threatens institutions (like church and state) based on traditional principles like hierarchy, authority, patriotism, and faith.

Academia is based on the idea that neither church nor state should dictate truth. Scholars should be able to pursue the truth wherever the evidence leads. Rational debate is based on logic and evidence, not the beliefs of your parents, clergy, or presidents.

The political agenda of academia is that democracies rely on evidence rather than ideology when deciding public policy. Citizens require access to evidence to have a reasoned debate, and this access requires tenure and academic freedom in our universities. Academics must have the capacity to pursue truth by following the evidence wherever it leads.

The purpose of my job is to foster this modern notion of democracy. I do not serve the state by teaching the current party line. I do not serve capitalism by telling students that college is about getting a job. I do not serve the church by telling students that everything their clergy says is true. I serve society by training citizens to think, speak, write and argue.

My fundamental assumption is that public policy based on ideology rather than evidence will harm our republic. Both sides of the ideological spectrum are capable of emphasizing ideology over evidence. I believe that I have as patriotic a profession as anyone in this country.

I train my students to assert a reasonable theory, logically deduce a hypothesis, generate evidence to test the hypothesis, and formulate conclusions that do not go beyond the evidence. Consistent with the modern assumptions of academia, I believe that these standards are more likely to empower citizens and lead to sound public policy.

I do not believe that these are the ONLY appropriate standards for discourse in a democratic society. I am a religious soul who goes to church every Sunday, and I understand the power of faith. I know that religious persons cannot ignore their faith when they enter the public square.

But religion and ideology is consistently blinding us to evidence in a staggering number of areas. We do not want to listen to what biologists tell us about evolution, what psychologists tell us about homosexuality, what sociologists tell us about poverty, or what historians tell us about the Middle East. There are more biologists who are creationists than Middle East scholars who supported the war in Iraq.

When the current administration is faced with evidence that contradicts their ideology, their reaction is to suppress the evidence. It has suppressed scientific studies about alternative energy sources, stem cell research, emergency contraception, abstinence only programs, endangered species, climate change, the impact of mercury on public health, and managing forests.

We do not have rational debates based on logic and evidence in this country. We attack the patriotism of the other side, even (or especially) if the evidence is generated by academics.  Can all these scientists be wrong? Don’t we call political discourse ‘spin’ for a reason? Who is following the evidence wherever it leads, and who has already made up their minds?

Congress and many states are now considering bills that would withhold federal funding to universities that fail to reflect “diversity” and “balance” on their faculties. Such legislation presumes that the state – and indirectly, in the current climate, the church – gets to decide what truth is.

            The real purpose of the ‘liberal academia’ critique is to make it acceptable to disregard modern, scientific evidence. It enables the state to tell us what the truth is. But we are in great peril if ignore what scholars have to say about things like global warming and the Middle East. Institutions like tenure and academic freedom prevent the state from having this power.