From “Conservatives Just Aren’t Into Academe, Study Finds: Divergent life choices may explain the dearth of right-wing scholars” recently posted to the Chronicle of Higher Education:
The Woessners were surprised to learn that while there had been a lot of debate about politics in the classroom, not much empirical research had been done. “There are questions here, but they’re getting lost in the bickering and the political debate,” says Ms. Kelly-Woessner.
To find out how students reacted when professors expressed political views, the Woessners distributed questionnaires in 2004 to 1,385 undergraduates in political-science courses at 29 colleges and universities. They asked the students to indicate whether they thought their professors were conservative, moderate, or liberal. And they asked students about the quality of classroom teaching.
What they found was that students who believed their professors had the same politics they did rated a course more highly than students who didn’t. The Woessners also found that students were less interested in a course when they believed their professors’ political views clashed with their own.
They published their findings in a paper called “My Professor Is a Partisan Hack: How Perceptions of Professors’ Political Views Affect Student Course Evaluations,” in the July 2006 issue of the American Political Science Association’s journal PS: Political Science & Politics.
They completed their study just as the Pennsylvania legislature held hearings on Mr. Horowitz’s academic bill of rights in the spring of 2006. Mr. Woessner was watching the hearings at home on television when he heard someone testify that politics does not affect classroom learning. So he called up the legislative panel and told an aide that research he and his wife had completed showed just the opposite. The panel asked the Woessners to testify.
Since their research showed that students were turned off when professors expressed views that were contrary to their own, the Woessners told lawmakers that professors should do their best to present both sides of a political argument and tread lightly when it comes to expressing their own views.
Ms. Kelly-Woessner follows that advice. “My students don’t know what I am,” she says. “I don’t tell them how I vote.”
This is startling for at least two reasons:
(1) a mapping of “conversative” on to “right” and, consequently, on to “status quo” and a mapping of “liberal” on to “left” and, consequently, on to “radical change” [observers will no doubt note that while, for instance, the Bush regime is certainly "right," it certainly isn't "conservative" or for the "status quo," rather, both are quite radical movements]. This is especially reflected in “debates” over whether fascists are “left” or “right.”
(2) the reduction of all decisions – or possible decisions – to an either/or position reflecting the political structure of American politics [i.e., the Democratic and the Republican position]. If anything, it is the reduction of politics to Republican or Democratic on any given issues that results in the ridiculous hyperbole about how substantive changes or positions are. From the perspective of the outside, there is little, if any, concrete difference between, say, McCain, Obama and Clinton or, again, between Harper, whoever is leading the Liberals this week, and Layton.
9 Comments
Craig,
The Chronicle article was interesting. Thanks for posting that.
There is a large and growing literature on these questions, and some of this will likely be discussed in the Special Issue of CJS on Public Sociology in Canada.
All your ideas about teaching and theory are defensible and reasonable, despite my differences with you.
But for me, the idea that “there is little, if any, concrete difference between, say, McCain, Obama and Clinton or, again, between Harper, whoever is leading the Liberals this week, and Layton” is simply bizarre.
I don’t know what to say, really..
Perhaps you could explain, preferably for me, in relationship to research findings in the areas within the sociology of intellectuals, political sociology and the sociology of higher education where these questions are studied and debated….
Neil McLaughlin
Neil, I’ll sidestep your request that I engage in the question as a sociologist (or social theorist or political theorist) and engage in the question as a citizen.
What was particularly perplexing in the article was the view I put in bold: “professors should do their best to present both sides of a political argument.” The issue of professors is but a special case of a general question: that there are two sides in any given political argument. This is simply (and empirically) false – witness any large scale social movement aimed at radical social and political transformation (civil rights, feminism, or gay rights): distinctions within the political movement – and, hence, arguments – are far more than merely for and against. (In terms of the academy, psychoanalysts and marxists would make a good case study – the formation of sects seems to be the norm rather than the exception.) How, for instance, would you have the issue of gay rights discussed in a class if there were only two views? For or against marriage, cultural or biological, and so on? How do we make sense of gay rights activists who make arguments in relation to marriage comparable to radical feminists – the problem is the institution itself and not who is included in that institution and how?
Getting back, more specifically, to the lack of substantive difference between, in the Canadian case, the NDP, the Liberals, and the Conservative/Reform… All answers to any problem – and, indeed, as to what counts as problem – are ultimately disputes over the specifics of policy and its implementation. That is, disputes are policy and not political disputes. Put otherwise, problems are resolved through reference to efficiency, probability and especially economy. (Witness the current spat between federal Conservatives and Ontario Liberals.)
America’s Next Top Model is starting – so I’m stopping this comment!
Answering as a citizen rather than as a scholar is fine, and reasonable.
And I agree that there are never only 2 sides to an issue.
That is absurd, as in the movement lead by David Horowitz to enforce political balance in the university.
There are, of course, political questions outside of policy, although I for one would not downplay battling for state power through the democratic process.
But still, the different political visions (and make no mistake, it is political in a deep way) that distinquish between the left wing of the democratic party (marginalized, to be sure!) and the right wing of the Republicans are enormous.
Political options, to be sure, are more limited in the US – the differences between the NDP, including the social movements linked to and in their orbit, and the Harper people (both politicians and the movement linked to the party) are very real, and in my view (as a citizen) should not be downplayed…
One could make the case for this point, also with empirical social science research.
But I accept your choice to frame your view outside of social sciences, as I do often myself also…
Neil McLaughlin
The reduction of politics to “two sides” is most likely a consequence of the existence of only two viable political parties – or, perhaps, political establishments – in the US such that all possible policy choices are reduced to the “Democratic” or the “Republican” which, in turn, results in complete lunacy such as “teach the controversy” when no such controversy exists. (Or, rather, where the existing controversy – the exact mechanism of evolution – is not the one people imagine – whether or not evolution is correct despite arguments over details.)
I’ll state quite strongly that there are no “political visions” (however “deep” they may be) in contemporary “politics.” I would point, for a variety of versions of this argument, to Carl Schmitt, Hannah Arendt, Jurgen Habermas and Michel Foucault.
As for myself, I don’t vote locally, provincially or nationally.
Craig,
I think you are right about the two party system in the US, leading to mindless “debates” in the broader intellectual culture.
Since you have stepped outside the social theorist and sociologist role for this discussion, I will do the same.
I think (as a citizen) that you as a citizen are someone who reads too much political theory for your own good, and your conception of being a citizen and not voting, in my view, is intellectually, morally and politically bankrupt….
Neil McLaughlin
Speaking again as a citizen (!), your inability to imagine why my position is not “intellectually, morally and politically bankrupt” is symptomatic of my general point! For liberal [note the small-l] “politics” there are only family disputes regarding the means to obtain the same end. Disputes extending beyond mere means (reducible in the present context, largely, to budgetary concerns and tax policy – i.e., questions of efficiency) are not understandable within the liberal position. (This is why Bush is such an outlier, by the way – had Gore taken politics seriously, which he most certainly does not, he would have attempted to institute what Schmitt called a “constitution preserving dictatorship” using means of violence if necessary. Liberal “politics” is so a-political that it cannot even identify threats to itself coming from within itself. Had the Courts reached the opposite decision, i.e., found in favour of Gore, I have no doubt that the issue would not have ended for Bush.) To point to Schmitt once again, liberalism transforms the political enemy into the debating partner and, I think, we are seeing you demonstrate his basic point. Put in other words, the ultimate liberal position is “to agree to disagree”!
*** (To symbolically separate two issues.) ***
Turning the question slightly back to the social sciences: you’ve defended, in publication, a “theory-driven” sociology. How do you square “theory driven,” your interest in “public sociology” with your claim of “too much political theory”? If not to draw normative consequences (and this is why I’m such a fan of Nietzsche, Durkheim and Foucault as opposed to Weber and most contemporary sociologists), what is the point?
Craig,
It is not that I can’t imagine your position. I just don’t find it compelling, or even defensible. I have explored these kinds of issues over the years, with many people who take some version of your position….
I do not find your use of Schmitt at all appropriate in the case of Bush and Gore, particularly around issues of, as you put it drawing our one of your favorite theorists “constitution preserving dictatorship” using means of violence if necessary. We are simply miles apart.
I am for “theory driven” sociology, linked to research in the university.
I am NOT for theory driven politics in the world, although certainly political theory has an important role to play in both political systems and the university. For me, with Michael Walzer, Richard Rorty, Irving Howe and Lionel Trilling (all in different ways, in relation to the role of political theory, philosophy and literature, say, in the world), I believe in separate spheres and appropriate (although contested and changing) boundaries between philosophy, theory and art in relation to the world of politics….
On these issues, we do not share enough to really dialogue usefully on…
But a 2009 Congress event on different approaches to teaching sociological theory could work, and be useful.
Neil McLaughlin
On dictatorship – see Andreas Kalyvas’ recent article in Political Theory 35(4) entitled “The Tyranny of Dictatorship” – it is a precursor to a book on the institution of dictatorship; an institution’s whose history is much longer than Pinochet or Castro – and significantly different.
On the 2009 Congress: is it wise to limit the discussion to social theory, or should it potentially embrace pedagogical issues as such? It would be nice to get a range of submissions from graduate students working as sessionals, people stuck in contractually limited appointments, junior faculty and established faculty.
On the 2009 Congress: is it wise to limit the discussion to social theory, or should it potentially embrace pedagogical issues as such? It would be nice to get a range of submissions from graduate students working as sessionals, people stuck in contractually limited appointments, junior faculty and established faculty.
I am open to various possibilities, I have no set agenda on this.
Something that would be interesting, and lively, and varied with participants, sounds good to me…
Neil McLaughlin
Post a Comment