- August 9th, 2011, 4:05 pm
#62683
Stephen Colbert once joked, “Reality has a well known liberal bias.” Apparently, his words were prophetic.
Only 6 percent of American scientists are Republicans, but 55 percent are Democrats and 32 percent are Independents, according to a recent poll conducted by the Pew organization.
This is a striking imbalance.
Why are there so few Republican scientists?
Conservative pundits such as Andrew Sullivan and Daniel Sarewitz were quick to see this as evidence of academia’s “ivory tower” promoting group-think and elitism.
The under-representation of Republicans is touted as evidence of discriminatory hiring and promotion practices in the academy.
Ironically, this would make Republicans an oppressed minority in the scientific field — akin to women who are steered away from math careers by the invocation of so-called “innate differences between the sexes.”
In response to this apparent discrimination, numerous state legislators such as Florida and Michigan have even proposed laws to ensure a politically diverse academic community.
But is political diversity really the goal of scholarship?
There is little evidence that anti-Republican bias is the cause of ideological imbalances in academia.
After all, Republicans are not only underrepresented in the social sciences, but also in the physical sciences — which have no direct connection to politics.
The reasons for the lack of Republican scientists are more complex than mere political discrimination. The Republican Party has a long history of anti-intellectualism, favoring common sense over skeptical inquiry.
From lobbying for creationism in public schools, denouncing global warming as a “hoax” and blocking stem cell research, the Republican Party has reacted to science with hostility.
It’s not surprising few scientists would support a party so openly hostile to research unless it fits its ideological agenda.
On an even deeper level, it would seem conservative-minded people are just not inclined towards scientific thinking.
Conservatives tend to make a decision quickly and stick to it. They are uncomfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, according to a comprehensive study conducted in 2003 by the American Psychological Association.
Liberals tend to be more attracted to novelty and creativity. They have an easier time reconciling conflicting information.
And scientific inquiry is a process that is always uncertain.
Experiments suffer from design flaws. Data are messy. Variables are not clearly defined. With science, conclusions are always tentative.
We can only hope each inquiry brings us a step closer to the truth — even if this ideal is unattainable.
Tentative conclusions cannot satisfy the conservative need for absolute certainty. There are no simple black and white answers in science.
To escape the terror of uncertainty, many conservatives turn to faith. Some seek solace in religious faith, others are comforted by faith in the free market.
Faith is belief without proof.
Faith means not asking questions.
The end result?
The Republican Party is largely comprised of people who don’t base their conclusions on evidence.
The faith-based ideology of the Republican Party is inherently in opposition to the methods of science.
A scholarly quest for knowledge is simply not a profession suited for people who need quick and easy answers.
Policing academia with political diversity laws will undermine the well-being of all universities.
Scholarship isn’t about diversity. It’s about evidence.
If Republicans wonder why they’re underrepresented in science, they should look to themselves for answers.
Only 6 percent of American scientists are Republicans, but 55 percent are Democrats and 32 percent are Independents, according to a recent poll conducted by the Pew organization.
This is a striking imbalance.
Why are there so few Republican scientists?
Conservative pundits such as Andrew Sullivan and Daniel Sarewitz were quick to see this as evidence of academia’s “ivory tower” promoting group-think and elitism.
The under-representation of Republicans is touted as evidence of discriminatory hiring and promotion practices in the academy.
Ironically, this would make Republicans an oppressed minority in the scientific field — akin to women who are steered away from math careers by the invocation of so-called “innate differences between the sexes.”
In response to this apparent discrimination, numerous state legislators such as Florida and Michigan have even proposed laws to ensure a politically diverse academic community.
But is political diversity really the goal of scholarship?
There is little evidence that anti-Republican bias is the cause of ideological imbalances in academia.
After all, Republicans are not only underrepresented in the social sciences, but also in the physical sciences — which have no direct connection to politics.
The reasons for the lack of Republican scientists are more complex than mere political discrimination. The Republican Party has a long history of anti-intellectualism, favoring common sense over skeptical inquiry.
From lobbying for creationism in public schools, denouncing global warming as a “hoax” and blocking stem cell research, the Republican Party has reacted to science with hostility.
It’s not surprising few scientists would support a party so openly hostile to research unless it fits its ideological agenda.
On an even deeper level, it would seem conservative-minded people are just not inclined towards scientific thinking.
Conservatives tend to make a decision quickly and stick to it. They are uncomfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, according to a comprehensive study conducted in 2003 by the American Psychological Association.
Liberals tend to be more attracted to novelty and creativity. They have an easier time reconciling conflicting information.
And scientific inquiry is a process that is always uncertain.
Experiments suffer from design flaws. Data are messy. Variables are not clearly defined. With science, conclusions are always tentative.
We can only hope each inquiry brings us a step closer to the truth — even if this ideal is unattainable.
Tentative conclusions cannot satisfy the conservative need for absolute certainty. There are no simple black and white answers in science.
To escape the terror of uncertainty, many conservatives turn to faith. Some seek solace in religious faith, others are comforted by faith in the free market.
Faith is belief without proof.
Faith means not asking questions.
The end result?
The Republican Party is largely comprised of people who don’t base their conclusions on evidence.
The faith-based ideology of the Republican Party is inherently in opposition to the methods of science.
A scholarly quest for knowledge is simply not a profession suited for people who need quick and easy answers.
Policing academia with political diversity laws will undermine the well-being of all universities.
Scholarship isn’t about diversity. It’s about evidence.
If Republicans wonder why they’re underrepresented in science, they should look to themselves for answers.
- By Bethel Saint Bright
- By Sy Borg