It is no longer a matter of dispute whether increasing diversity of perspectives enriches understanding of social issues. Conversations about diversity at institutions of higher learning typically turn on questions of race, gender and sexuality. More recently, class, geography and the intersections between categories of underrepresentation have been integrated into the discussion.
However, viewpoint diversity remains controversial: many believe it is acceptable – and even desirable – to exclude non-progressive perspectives. Indeed, while increased education mitigates prejudice on the grounds of factors like race, it actually renders people more likely to discriminate against those who hold different beliefs or commitments.
In fact, while there has been noteworthy progress made since the 1990s in terms of representation for women and racial minority groups, the ideological underrepresentation problem is growing worse:
Although students are more likely to identify as “liberal” or “progressive” today than they were in the 1990s, faculty members have shifted much farther to the left. Given early indicators that those in Generation Z are more conservative than millennials in many respects (see here, here, here, here for instance), the ideological gap between faculty and students seems set to grow even larger. And of course, college students already tend to be far to the left of the mainstream US population. Therefore, the rift between academics and the societies they are supposed to inform and advise will likely grow much more severe as well.
Already, in social research fields (the humanities and social sciences), the scale of ideological underrepresentation is vastly more pronounced than disparities along the lines of gender, sexuality or even race.
Of course, particular institutions need not, as a rule, strive for perfect parity with the general population along any demographic dimension. After all, under (or over) representation is often a result of selection effects. However, underrepresentation becomes worrisome under two conditions. One is a hostile environment and/or active discrimination. The other is if insufficient input from certain constituencies lowers research quality and impact. Unfortunately, both of these conditions seem to be present in the case of ideological representation within the academy:
There is evidence of active discrimination against conservatives (and more broadly, a suppression of views that defy the prevailing orthodoxy), and this does undermine the accuracy and effectiveness of social research.
Yet, even among those who recognize that lack of ideological diversity is a problem, questions remain about how much of a priority addressing it should be, as compared to other forms of underrepresentation.
After all, conservatives have never been on the receiving end of systematic oppression, exploitation and exclusion on the basis of their political ideology in ways that even remotely approach how women have been subjugated on the basis of their gender, or how blacks have been persecuted on the basis of their race. This is simply an historical fact. Therefore, even if we agree that it is wrong to discriminate against conservatives, and even if we acknowledge that, in absolute terms, ideological underrepresentation seems to be a bigger problem in social research these days, there would still seem to be a greater normative urgency to addressing racial or gender disparities.
This I do not doubt. However, ideological diversity is not distinct from other forms of diversity. Indeed, a commitment to empowering and defending women, people of color and other minority groups actually makes it more important to protect and enhance the freedoms of conscience, expression and inquiry in institutions of higher learning.
As Jonathan Haidt and I have previously demonstrated, it is primarily women, minorities, and progressives who suffer when free speech protections are undermined on campus. It is generally women and people of color – usually progressives – who pay the cost when administrators are encouraged to weigh into political disputes. These same groups will also bear the brunt of continued erosion of public trust in institutions of higher learning.
STEM fields are not in any particular danger. Their value is widely appreciated. Social research, however, is a different matter entirely.
Given that women, people of color, LGBTQ scholars and leftists are better represented in the humanities and social sciences than in most other sectors of the academy, they will disproportionately suffer when social research is devalued and defunded. Queer theorists, feminist or critical race scholars have a lot more on the line than conservatives in these fields.
It is precisely for this reason that minorities and progressives must embrace ideological diversity on campus, and engage more with non-progressives and non-academics off campus as well: to demonstrate to everyone else that they also have a voice, and a stake, in the enterprise of social research.