I believe I've written before at SDP that I disagree with the premise behind ideological affirmative action in universities, but I cannot seem to find the post. Therefore, I'd like to revisit my objections and turn to this Wall Street Journal story about the University of Colorado's plan to create a "Chair in Conservative Thought and Policy." Excerpt:
Chancellor G.P. "Bud" Peterson surveys this landscape with unease. A college that champions diversity, he believes, must think beyond courses in gay literature, Chicano studies and feminist theory. "We should also talk about intellectual diversity," he says. So over the next year, Mr. Peterson plans to raise $9 million to create an endowed chair for what is thought to be the nation's first Professor of Conservative Thought and Policy.
Mr. Peterson's quest has been greeted with protests from some faculty and students, who say the move is too -- well, radical. "Why set aside money specifically for a conservative?" asks Curtis Bell, a teaching assistant in political science. "I'd rather see a quality academic than someone paid to have a particular perspective."
Even some conservatives who have long pushed for balance in academia voice qualms. Among them is David Horowitz, a conservative agitator whose book "The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America" includes two Boulder faculty members: an associate professor of ethnic studies who writes about the intersection of Chicano and lesbian issues, and a philosophy professor focused on feminist politics and "global gender justice."
While he approves of efforts to bolster a conservative presence on campus, Mr. Horowitz fears that setting up a token right-winger as The Conservative at Boulder will brand the person as a curiosity, like "an animal in the zoo." We "fully expect this person to be integrated into the fabric of life on campus," replies Todd Gleeson, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
Be sure to read the rest. As my colleagues and I have detailed before, the lack of ideological diversity in academia is a real problem. The lack of ideological diversity causes a variety of problems, such as reducing the diversity of ideas, biasing teaching agendas, and generating a "groupthink" among an ideologically homogeneous group.
Creating a token Conservative on the campus of Boulder is a poor solution. This would require the university to define who is a "conservative" for affirmative action purposes. Furthermore, hiring a "conservative" might make student think this person reflects the views of all conservatives. Plus, hiring conservatives for their views rather than their qualifications (which may be inferior) would make it difficult for their ideas to be taken seriously by the campus body. Therefore, the entire premise of promoting academic diversity falls through when academic debates are not meaningful. I support improving intellectual diversity, but advocating affirmative action for conservatives is not the way to do it.
UPDATE: CU was involved in another controversy a couple months ago over the hiring of Bruce Benson, Republican and oilman, to head the University of Colorado system. Another thought: when you have departments like the History Department on the verge of collapse at CU, where is the $9 million coming from to create this chair? Wouldn't the money be better spent improving the program already in place rather than promote a bad idea?
UPDATE: Related thoughts at Phi Beta Cons.
Recent Comments