The Academic Elites: Enlightened or Deluded?

           Image: Dave Cutler

 The “intellectual” class of academic elites has a powerful role in policymaking in this country. Although they have no direct responsibility for practical affairs—little or no first-hand experience, they wield ideas and words to advocate their values. Since their ideals are circulated through university teaching, the press, the media, scholarly journals, etc., their influence is disproportionately strong. Members of the class might even suppose that their disproportionate influence is deserved—after all, they did have the highest grades and test scores. Indeed, the elite class often writes abstrusely, which, perhaps paradoxically, enhances their influence through a halo effect (“I don’t understand it so it must be right”). So, is the influence of the academic elites for the better or worse?

            Success as an academic depends almost entirely upon one’s ability to publish and to be cited by other scholars. The pressure on professors to publish de-emphasizes the importance of effective teaching and leads to prolixity. The requirement to publish frequently favors overly critical and negative viewpoints and disfavors support for the status quo and tradition. Publications in the social sciences, liberal arts, and legal studies are, in effect, nihilistic. This is the case because it is easier (and more appreciated) for scholars to criticize and point out weaknesses of current policies and theories (and those of other postulating academics) than it is to publish support of tradition or to adequately promote a positive theory (this problem is most prevalent in “critical theory,” which doesn’t even try to assert any positive theory to replace what it criticizes). The tone of academic writing is decidedly negative-- which gives an impression that things are worse than they really are.

A recent study found that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans among humanities professors is eight to one. Perhaps largely, this is the case because liberals self-select to become professors while elite conservatives tend to go into practice. However, the hard liberal slant certainly favors liberal academics and the propagation of liberal thought. Although the left slant of academia is doesn't seem to block conservatives from entering the career field, they have more hurdles to clear to establish themselves in the profession once they get there. Scholarly discourse unduly proceeds on a level of liberal assumptions and liberal groupthink.  Academics, in general, become more leftist through their career due to a desire (or necessity) to conform with other academics and to join the "cutting-edge" conversation, which often proceeds on egalitarian assumptions. Many professors benefit financially from liberal politics (e.g. high tuition, cheap and easy student loans, high government employee benefits, etcetera). Some scholarly journals even have, at one point or another, discriminated against conservative authors in choosing who to publish (e.g. here). As a result of all these facts, radical egalitarian thinking disproportionately and for no adequate reason influences culture and politics; especially through the most impressionable among us, e.g. college students and less-educated cable news watchers.

That said, academic thought has had many beneficial results (even in the liberal arts—the hard sciences and engineering have had tangibly good effects on life, aren’t ideologically as slanted, and are not the subject of this post). Academia has had a constructive effect, for example, in bringing about civil rights for racial minorities and women. I would argue that American professors have encouraged the improving tolerance worldwide and even to a more peaceful world. Academia also serves to counterbalance some of the excesses of a market driven economy (e.g. environmental concerns). However, the beneficial results of academic discourse in these areas during the past century, in my opinion, would have worked just as well without the scholarly disregard for tradition, religion, and moral absolutes.

It is my contention, however, that academia has contributed to increased decadence characterized by an erosion of self-restraint and moral traditions of our society. Although individual scholars profess moral codes and many indeed write for good causes, in practice and in the whole, scholarly discourse and university curriculum promotes the notion that moral truths are arbitrary and subjective unless confirmed by scientific evidence. It encourages moral relativism. In place of the pillar of Judeo-Christian morality of American history, academics build a vapid chamber that echoes “tolerance” (which is frequently conflated with “acceptance”—or else you’re a bigot) and  “do what you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.” As G.K. Chesterton points out, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.” Too many classes today are cynical towards American tradition and religion. For one example, I had a professor who smugly chided Christopher Columbus for not having discovered America and for instituting slavery then, that very class, cited Nietzsche and called him a "discerning" thinker. Why not mention that the Carib indians Columbus enslaved practiced cannibalism and that Nietzsche suffered severe depression throughout his life? Or that Columbus, a true underdog, overcame many obstacles to discover America? The bad should be put in perspective with the good. Today, we are supposed to applaud everyone's religious and moral beliefs (unless your Christian) and everyone's heritage (unless you have European blood). Such a view is skewed. Regardless of creed, culture, race, or socio-economic background, the good and the bad of history and our heritage should be taught on equal footing and in proper perspective.

Academia, as a whole, is failing to bring about enlightenment; it shames the only solution to the collective action problem: faith and morality. It has utterly failed to supplant Judeo-Christian ethics as a source of community good will, temperance, freedom, and wisdom in America. Abraham Lincoln observed, “The philosophy in the classroom in one generation is the philosophy of government in the next.” Academics are leaving students with a confused moral compass. They prepare students only to deconstruct (and disrespect) tradition and the current situation through Marxist, feminist, Freudian, and other critiques. Students are not taught prudence, gratitude, or morality. As the radical egalitarian and morally relativistic project of academia gains traction in politics and culture, Americans will need to trade in more liberties for safety and more collective virtue for equality and “tolerance.” If you ask me, the bargain is a poor one.

Individual academic elites are both enlightened and deluded. But, the incentives and structure of the tertiary education system are in trouble. They need to be reworked if we are to best progress towards a more virtuous society. Superior teaching is equally important as research and publication. Schools should accommodate faith and morality. The heritage and positive theories within subject matter areas (the good) should be emphasized with critiques of the past and present (the bad). Institutional diversity in schools should be encouraged by national policy. Critical thinking is good; but so is gratitude and prudence. We need to align the education incentive structure to continue reaping the benefits of critical thought without incurring the costs of academic nihilism. 

Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome

There are two notions of equality that drive different political ideologies. The first is equality of opportunity. An equality of opportunity approach seeks to level the playing field by making the law apply equally to everyone. The second kind of equality is equality of outcomes. Equality of outcomes seeks to ensure that everyone ends up in the same conditions. The two are mutually exclusive to some degree as equality of opportunity implies certain inequality of outcome. Only equality of opportunity is consistent with pure liberty. But, what kind of “equality of opportunity” should we seek in America? And, is the line between the two as clear as one might like to think?

Let’s look at a case study of affirmative action. The issue is obviously complex and some oversimplification will unfortunately be necessary to fit this into a neat little blog post. Racial inequality is measurable by educational indicators, socio-economic circumstances, crime rates, single mothers, and by a number of other sociological gauges. To correct for these inequalities, various affirmative action policies have been put into effect. Affirmative action policies can perhaps be grouped into two primary types. First, there are systematic remedies that seek to level the playing field and make the rules apply to everyone the same. Secondly, there are redistributive policies that seek to open up new opportunities.

What would justify affirmative action? Presumably, most all affirmative action policies would be unjustifiable if racial inequality arises from (1) innate biological inferiority (overwhelming evidence refutes this notion entirely); (2) cultural pathologies that deemphasize hard work, education, etc (some empirical evidence supports this); or (3) voluntary choices to pursue the paths that they do (very unlikely). However, what affirmative action policies are justified if (a) discrimination and stereotypes play a role in keeping a race down (informal barriers) or (b) structural based obstacles like segregation or a lack of family connections work against a race (formal barriers)?

Even libertarians think that structural or systematic obstacles stemming from government’s duplicitous treatment of different races should be abolished. But, to the extent that discrimination (overt and unconscious) still exists, should quotas, recruiting campaigns, or employee support programs be provided to members of a disadvantaged race? Although express quotas in hiring and school admissions are prohibited by law, unspoken redistributions of opportunity in many careers and school admissions are measurable statistically and legal. So, should discrimination be remedied by redistributions of opportunities? Such an approach would be an equality of outcomes approach. 

Affirming a belief in equality of opportunity implies a belief that government should make sure everyone starts off in the same place, not that everyone ends up in the same condition. However, the issue is complicated by the fact that people aren’t born in the same place. Although we are all of equal value in the eyes of our Heavenly Father, some of us are born to poor parents, others to rich parents; some are born in the United States, others in Somalia; some to parents who love one another, others never know one of their parents; etc. The only way to get everyone started off equally would be to institute some Spartan program of community child-rearing and a total prohibition of any gifts whether given inter vivos or after death. However, that just seems inherently wrong and completely inconsistent with freedom.

Should we simply ignore birth inequalities? I am tempted to say that it is better to let mysterious fate distribute opportunity rather than the arbitrary or fleeting preferences of government. But, I don’t think such an extreme view is the only answer to this puzzle.

A certain degree of economic inequality is desirable. Inequality provides rewards for hard work, talent, and achievement. It provides lubricant for social enterprise and progress. However, when inequality becomes too great, it animates pride, exploitation, discontent, and rebellion that cause societal decline. When crafting solutions to inequality, government should not focus on where to strike a balance between inequality and equality. Rather, I think the focus should be on balancing economic mobility with the freedom to bequest good things to our loved ones. That isn’t very precise; but I don’t think precise is possible. The slightest possibility of reaching the top of the Forbes Richest People list in a single lifetime is all that is necessary for proper income mobility in my view. 

I am thus only in favor of redistributive policies to the extent that all people have the minimum necessities of education, food, shelter, medical care, and life guidance to change their own fortunes and achieve unlimited success with the probabilities of economic success (for full-time, committed individuals mid-career) being chartable on a bell curve. With a more virtuous society, the bell curve will shift towards the prosperous; with a society in moral decline will shift towards the poor. But, the possibility to succeed or to lose should always be present. Real freedom can only be present if we are responsible for the consequences of our choices.

Given my acceptance of some forms of redistributive policies, it is worth mentioning that such policies have been egregiously mismanaged. First, the government not only redistributes things that are not the minimum necessities I described, but are actually detrimental to a disadvantaged person's chances of improving his or her situation. People don’t need a T.V. In fact, TVs do more damage than good. Somehow, people on government stipends for poverty, unemployment, etc afford televisions. People don’t need more bedrooms than there are people in their family; yet I see that in my service to those in government subsidized (or furnished) housing.  And, even the things government provides that people do need as minimum necessities are mismanaged on a large scale. Student loans are given in excessive amounts and without any risk assessment. Medicare pays for unnecessary stuff and pays more for the same services when compared to Veteran Affairs. Redundant programs (there are 23 agencies that provide independent and overlapping assistance to former USSR countries, 12 agencies that ensure food safety requirements are met, and the list goes on for a very long time) are the norm. The mismanagement of what should be proper government redistribution and regulation purposes cannot be understated.

I should also say that income mobility is not the most important thing in the world. Even people who end up not able to break through their birth social class can live joyful and meaningful lives. Indeed, the rich are often less happy, probably because they focus too much on money and too little on the more important things of life like faith, family, friends, and developing an honorable and virtuous character. Equality and freedom are instrumental in bringing forth a virtuous society. But, neither is the end in itself. Government policies should reflect that emphasis on virtuous living through freedom and equality rather than freedom and equality at the expense of virtue.