Evaluating the free market by comparing it to the alternatives (We don't need more regulations, We don't need more price controls, No Socialism in the courtroom, Hey, White House, leave us all alone)
Thursday, August 1, 2019
The Purely Imaginary ‘Rightward Transformation’ in Higher Education
"There’s a good reason for Walsh’s lack of measurable evidence for the
alleged transformation: Academia did in fact undergo a measurable
ideological shift in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, but it played out exactly opposite
the assertions found in Walsh’s report, the broader “neoliberal
takeover” literature, and similar contributions to this genre. All
empirical measures show an academy that is moving sharply and rapidly to
the political left.
The clearest measure of this leftward shift may be seen in faculty
political identification over time. If conservative philanthropy
actually exerted transformative power over the academy, we could
reasonably expect to see a measurable increase in the number of faculty
who self-identify on the political right. Instead, the opposite has
happened.
University faculty have always leaned to the left of the general
public, although from the 1960s until the late 1990s self-identified
left-liberals consistently made up a stable plurality of about 40 to 45
percent. A sharp leftward shift began around 2000, and left-liberals
currently make up an astounding 60 percent of all university faculty.
Faculty growth on the political left comes at the direct expense of
conservatives, who dropped from 22 percent of the academy as recently as
1995 to only 12 percent today. Furthermore, faculty who identify as
“far left”—a category that usually includes Marxists, socialists, and
derivative ideologies in Critical Theory—provided the main impetus of
this shift. Far leftists more than doubled in number during this same
period, going from a small minority of only 4 percent to 12 percent
today—or parity with the total number of conservatives of any stripe.
If any rightward “transformation” of academia happened in this
period, as Walsh’s analysis contends, it was so thoroughly subsumed by a
larger and simultaneous leftward faculty shift that it does not even
register in the data.
A more careful proponent of the rightward transformation thesis might
respond at this point that faculty ideology alone does not fully
capture the effects of conservative influence on campus. Rather, market
ideology or “neoliberalism” has taken root in university administration,
due to right-wing philanthropy filling in the gaps from public
budgetary cuts, or so the theory goes.
Jason Brennan and I investigated this thesis in our book Cracks in the Ivory Tower
by asking a simple question: If neoliberalism has taken over university
administration, or the university system at large, who and where are
the neoliberals? When did they first appear, and can we track their
purported acquisition of power or influence over time? These questions
may seem obvious from a social scientific perspective, yet in the world
of argument-by-declamation that characterizes much of the higher
education literature, nobody appears to have ever tested the claim.
Turning to administrative ranks, we quickly find several indicators
of a leftward shift that has paralleled the faculty. Although polling
data on administrator ideology only recently became available, a 2018 survey of student-facing administrators—typically
the lower-level ranks of student affairs and university life
personnel—found that 71 percent identified on the political left.
Conservatives comprised only 6 percent, indicating that this segment of
university administration sits even further to the left than the faculty
at large.
While proponents of the conservative transformation thesis might
point out that this survey did not extend to executive-level
administrators such as presidents and provosts, the bulk of university
“administrative bloat” in the past four decades has actually occurred in
the same lower-level ranks of student-facing administration. Between
1976 and 2011, executive level university administrators added about
150,000 new personnel to their ranks. Non-executive administrators
swelled by over 630,000 in the same period, with the largest categories
coming from student affairs and services. In total, these lower-level
university administrators currently outnumber full-time faculty and, by
every available indicator, they sit to the political left of even the
ideologically skewed professoriate.
When we try to measure the purported rightward transformation, the
speculated academic embrace of free-market ideology, the troublesome
“neoliberals,” and the accompanying influence of conservative donors are
nowhere to be found.
Instead, scholars such as Walsh and others who write in the same
genre display a habit of focusing upon the exceptions that prove the
rule. They cherry-pick foundations such as Olin, Walgreen, and Koch, or
organizations such as the Federalist Society, and elevate them to the
center of higher education philanthropy, when in fact these funders and
their perspectives constitute tiny and shrinking intellectual minorities
in an overwhelmingly left-leaning higher education system.
Even among academic disciplines that the right has supposedly
targeted—economics and law—conservative and libertarian perspectives
still remain distinct minorities.
Economics textbooks place a much heavier emphasis
on pro-intervention “market failure theory” than on deregulation or
critiques of political shortcomings. Faculty hiring patterns at top law
schools display clear evidence of favoritism
to progressive applicants, whereas comparably credentialed
conservatives and libertarians tend to place at much lower ranked
institutions."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.