It’s fine if people in a particular profession lean this way or that in their political views. There’s nothing particularly appealing about an ideological quota, after all. Sometimes, the leanings are simply driven by logic. I would not expect that people who believe that the use of fossil fuels is a moral assault on Gaia or future generations of humans, for example, to rush into the business of petroleum engineering.
On the other hand, what if the ideological leanings of an academic field of study came about not by the coincidental choices of candidates, but through people already in the field filtering out those of a different opinion? Today we’d call that “discrimination,” and it’s a common complaint among conservatives.
From the Washington Times comes news of a new research project. The conclusion: “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.”
It’s not realistic to expect that academics would have no opinions on political or social questions. Is it, though, realistic to expect that they would be able to put their own views aside when it comes to hiring others, approving publication drafts, or inviting someone to sit in on a panel discussion at a conference? I would hope so — “we’re here to learn, to test hypotheses, so bring on differing opinions” — and all that. But perhaps that’s too much to expect today.
Here’s the Times article:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/?page=all