A Fine Whine

The Washington Post had an op/ed piece by a moderate-conservative professor decrying the "lack of diversity" in U.S. universities. But when he says lack of diversity, he means bias--bias towards liberals, that is.

I don't disagree that many professors in the social studies disciplines (such as sociology, economics, and political science) are left-leaning. And a common, but unruly answer to this from the liberal angle is that liberals are more open to ideas and therefore more amenable to the "teaching" atmosphere.

I do not think this is necessarily incorrect, but it sure does piss people off when you say it. Maranto (the author of the op/ed) in particular says it smacks of arrogance, which it absolutely does. That doesn't make it wrong, though.

Maranto compares the tendency to teach Intelligent Design in schools (they don't) to the tendency to teach Marxism economic theory (they do). This seems flawed for a number of reasons, chief of which is that they are not comparable theoretical systems. Yes, both may be fundamentally flawed, but Marxism is a testable theory and ID is completely untestable. Granted, I am neither an economist nor a biologist, but I know that you can look at history and economic theory and study Marxism, and thereby identify its flaws. But with ID, the entire theory is "Evolution isn't real." Not only is it asinine, it's untestable. The phrase, "It was Intelligent design," is the answer to any question you would have about biology, if you adopt the ID approach. "Some sort of higher power did it" is not an answer, because it stops there.

So it is a poor comparison. Marxism may be loved by some liberals, but it is not the same as when conservatives propose Intelligent Design as an answer.

And if this is what makes liberals arrogant--that they know a proper, testable theory when they see one, and conservatives seem happy to spout some untestable nonsense and then stop research--then sign me up for the Ego class.

Not that I'd... need it. What with being liberal.