A Conservative Critique of “Intellectual Diversity”
by Pratik Chougule | View comments |
Print This Post
In truth, conservatives do not really want intellectual diversity, and rightfully so.
The conservative critique of academia as an institution overrun by harebrained leftists is not a new one. William F. Buckley, Jr. for instance, launched his career by inspiring a generation of conservatives with his book God and Man at Yale in 1951, criticizing Yale University for its collectivist secularism. This was before the academy's more radical turn in the 1960s and 1970s. For those on the right, the argument is a relatively easy one to make; leftist professors far outnumber conservatives at most colleges, academic departments such as Women's Studies, Peace Studies, and Postmodern Studies have proliferated across academia, and core curricula are increasingly being replaced with academic flexibility. Controversial comments by academics such as University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill only fuel conservative antagonism.
What has changed in recent years, however, is the nature of conservatives' efforts to counter the left on campus. Assimilating the rhetoric of the left, "intellectual diversity" has become a rallying cry for campus conservatives in their efforts to increase the presence of conservative ideas. David Horowitz in particular has fueled the effort by pushing universities and state legislatures to adopt the Academic Bill of Rights, a set of principles designed to defend "free inquiry and free speech within the academic community."
To date, the tactic has largely been successful. At Brown University for instance, hardly a bastion of conservatism, President Ruth Simmons has repeatedly acknowledged the need for greater intellectual diversity on campus. To fulfill this mission, she has created the Kaleidoscope Fund to provide financial support in the effort to bring more conservative speakers to the university and has supported Professor John Tomasi's Political Theory Project, an initiative to drive "beneath the familiar and easy ideological labels" to discuss three main themes: "The American Experiment; Market Society and Social Order; and Globalization and Development." The initiatives have changed the paradigm of political discourse on campus and have generally created a culture of greater tolerance on campus for conservatives. Moreover, it has motivated many disgruntled alumni to once again take part in projects on campus. A similar story can be told of universities across the country.
The intellectual diversity mantra has proven particularly successful for two reasons. First, it is extremely difficult for the left to counter calls for "intellectual diversity," "under-representation," and "tolerance and inclusiveness." Not only do these ideals appear to be principally benign, they appeal to the very heart of leftist orthodoxy. For the left to suddenly abandon "diversity" is seemingly tantamount to a concession of intellectual failure. Moreover, it simply provides conservatives with further ammunition to blast the academic left perched atop a hill of its own hypocrisy. The dilemma has worked out particularly well for the Brown College Republicans, for instance. Brown's Third World Center, the beacon of multiculturalism on campus which, until recently, hosted an orientation program exclusively for minority students, has begrudgingly given the College Republicans money to bring speakers such as Dinesh D'Souza and Rich Lowry to campus in the name of intellectual diversity. (Ironically, the Third World Center gave D'Souza, an Indian immigrant, $25, while contributing $50 to bring Lowry).
Second, the current generation of college students, while on balance politically liberal, is relatively conservative compared to both the current crop of university professors as well as previous generations of college students. Many commentators have noted, for instance, the prevalence of "South Park conservatives," socially liberal students who nevertheless sympathize with conservatives in their critique of political correctness and support for free-markets. Moreover, the perceived intellectual stagnation which often results from political one-sidedness has made intellectual diversity an appealing idea to many students and professors on the left. The allure of intellectual diversity has reached beyond conservatives to supporters of vigorous debate and scholarly inquiry.
Yet for conservatives, the concept of intellectual diversity should raise at least as many worries as it provides hopes. Indeed, in committing itself to the tenet of intellectual diversity, modern conservatism could potentially sow the seeds of its own destruction. Inherent in the goal of intellectual diversity is the notion that a variety of viewpoints is a laudable end in itself. Based on a pure market model, this vision of academic discourse appeals to the liberal ideal that the best ideas will emerge naturally from a potpourri of theories. While appealing in theory, this view of education logically commits conservatives to a set of conceptions which are profoundly anti-conservative. In virtually every academic field there is a multiplicity of ideas which have or continue to guide the belief systems of rational people. Stalinism, Nazism, and white supremacy, for all their obvious flaws, represent ideologies which have guided the actions of influential leaders. Under the logic of intellectual diversity, don't these theories deserve an equal place in the classroom? Critics may correctly point out that these theories are today so thoroughly discredited that they are no longer relevant to contemporary discussions. But what about theories which hold adherents in today's society? Should Marxists teach economics? Should conspiracy theorists teach history? Should Islamic radicals teach Judaic studies? Intellectual diversity's answer to these questions is a resounding yes.
In truth, conservatives do not really want intellectual diversity, and rightfully so. The proper conservative model of education is one which emphasizes classical liberal values, teaches a traditional canon of literature, and inculcates in students the principles of America's ordered liberty. A true conservative education is fundamentally incompatible with intellectual diversity. In the intellectual diversity debate raging in academia today, the stakes are particularly high for conservatives. Diversity's seduction of the left led to academia's descent into the morally, culturally, and intellectually bankrupt institution it is today. While the right's conception of diversity is certainly different from that of the left, schemes to socially engineer outcomes at the expense of merit and truth are ultimately theories of intellectual backwardness. For conservatives to rally around the cause of intellectual diversity represents at best, political opportunism, and at worst, a profound deviation from the principles which make conservatism worth defending in the first place.
Pratik_Chougule@brown.edu
Read more articles by Pratik Chougule
"For conservatives to rally around the cause of intellectual diversity represents at best, political opportunism, and at worst, a profound deviation from the principles which make conservatism worth defending in the first place."
So you'd have us lie back and shut up, then?
Comment by rightwingprof | November 24, 2006
With due respect, I think the author has accepted the Left’s hyper-inflation of the definition of diversity and is reacting to that. But it’s difficult to tell whether he is wrong or not. Yes, a classical education should include a broad liberal arts perspective, traditional canons of literature, and inculcates and principles of America's ordered liberty, but all of those things are waged in the marketplace of ideas. They ought to properly cover concepts as distinct as America’s history, European feudalism, and the philosopher kings of Plato. A good education exposes a student to all of these ideas and probably more (e.g., Adam Smith, Marx, Thoreau, Malthus, etc.). These are “diverse” perspectives and should be thought of as intellectually diverse. Conservatives don’t fear the marketplace of ideas (because ours are usually better).
If what the author is reacting to is the fact that the academic Left has eviscerated diversity and made it to look more like propaganda, then he is absolutely correct that conservatives should not replicate that twisted definition of “diversity.” But what the Left preaches is not diversity. To quote Lincoln “If you call a cow’s tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have? Of course only four.” But true diversity of thoughts and ideas is a hallmark of conservatism – i.e. more freedom, less mandate.
Comment by mmcclel | November 24, 2006
The diversity argument has always meant something very specific for the left–namely that
specific special interst groups receive privileges of some sort. Afro-Americans were an obvious
target group for the diversity crowd–but what will be historically interesting was what sort of
baggage got smuggled in on the backs (once again) of Afro-Americans. While Afro-Americans
are consistently polled as one of the country's most conservative ethnic constituencies, their
leaders generally line up to the left of the Nation. Why is this? I think the answer is that
"Ethnicity" is a politically "negotiated" concept and
in this case (as is the case with others), what counts as "Afro American" publically has little
to do with the "private" reality. Liberals use the so called "slippery slope" argument
to argue that Afro American rights (which most folks recognize as a worthy cause) are the same
thing as welfare, gay rights, relaxing border control and the need for more NPR funding. In this
way opprobrium towards "racism," is extended to protect a whole
range of liberal pieties that have nothing to do with race or Afro Americans.
In the 19th century, Afro Americans bore the brunt of the southern economy. In the 20th century
their representation serves as the vehicle for American counter cultural values of the 1960s.
Americans have nothing to fear from the concept of diversity. However I've forgotten who said with
much truth
that the first step towards tyranny is the corruption of language. The abuse of terms such
as Afro American and "Race" probably are some big steps.
Comment by Nathan Alexander | November 25, 2006
One of the problems that the apparent conundrum the author discusses is the lack of recognition for the role of authority, tradition, and common sense in society, as Professor Feser points out http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B .
Although his short essay is about why conspiracy theories abound, it has broader application, especially in the case of “intellectual diversity”.
“We tend reflexively to assume that the popular or received wisdom, especially if associated with some ‘official’ source or long-standing institution, is always ripe for challenge, and also that if some independent thinker or writer takes an unconventional position, however extreme or counterintuitive, then there simply must be something right in it, or least worth listening to. ‘Innovator’ and ‘iconoclast’ are among our favorite terms of approbation, and ‘questioning authority’ and ‘thinking outside the box’ are applauded even by many self-described conservatives. By contrast, ‘unoriginal’ and ‘conventional’ are treated as if they were synonyms for ‘unintelligent’ and ‘unthinking’ . . . The absurd idea that to be intelligent, scientific, and intellectually honest requires a distrust for all authority per se . . . has so deeply permeated the modern Western consciousness that conspiratorial thinking has for many people come to seem the rational default position . . . the belief that extremism in the attack on authority is no vice has a powerful appeal . . . [But] where phenomena remote from everyday human experience are concerned – the large-scale structure of space/time, the microscopic realm of molecules, atoms, and so forth – it is perhaps not surprising that human beings should for long periods of time have gotten things wrong. But where everyday matters are concerned – where opinions touch on our basic understanding of human nature and the facts about ordinary social interaction – it is very likely that they would not, in general, get things wrong.”
So, in our search for truth, according to Feser, authority, tradition, and common sense play the critical role of a starting point for that search. By contrast, the Left wastebaskets 2,500+ years of Western experience and starts with a blank slate to re-invent all of civilization in a single generation (talk about ego!) with one basic statement, like Nietzsche’s, “the sovereignty of the individual will, that the individual human will is the highest and best value, and asserts that the individual will is the arbiter of all value, and within society, all individual human wills are considered of equal value, validity, and worth, and there is no principle (e.g., God) by which to discern among them; society is then a contest of a will to power, of asserting one's preferences over those of others.” This “pull-out-all-the-stops” approach does not take a rocket-science level of intelligence to see that what it advocates is not even new and, therefore, where it will lead if implemented.
Bottom line on this “intellectual diversity” concept is that any idea that doesn’t have authority, tradition, and common sense as a starting point is more than likely as bogus as 2+2=5 (which is diversity of thought also) unless it proves that what “we have inherited from our parents, society, and people who, due to special experience or study, have more knowledge of a subject matter than we do” have been wrong all along.
Comment by sedonaman | November 27, 2006
Perhaps a more insightful take can be found from Hillsdale College's President at http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/
Comment by mmcclel | November 27, 2006
And an undergraduate shall lead them.
One of the implications of Pratik Chougule’s marvelously succinct column is that in the battle against leftwing sophistry, the “conservative” call for “intellectual diversity” is yet another form of sophistry.
As the responses here show, Chougule has a ways to go, before getting through to people. But the way is worthwhile. Best of luck, sir!
Comment by Nicholas Stix | November 27, 2006
Patrick:
If conservatives deny diversity in ideas, then, we have lost the battle of the intellect. We would probably agree that drilling down to a principle or concrete with a true intellectual understanding of history, mankind and self is the only way to own an interpretation of reality that is rational. If we loose, intellectually the brutes will continue to usurp power and our decline will continue.
In spite of the majority’s pessimistic view of humanity, our only hope is through a true intellectual solution via an optimistic goal of constant improvement. But, how do we improve? How would we improve each generation and make it superior to the last?
Is there anyone left, today, that would agree our American founding was the capstone on the rise of the entire western civilization and mankind itself? If so, then the founding documents and the Constitution were the realization and fulfillment. Begging the question how did that happen, leaves the answer pointing toward classically educated men concerned with the future of humanity. This means they were wise as well as virtuous and courageous; Philosopher/warrior Kings.
I must refer you to the Declaration of Independence that promises protection for the “opinions of mankind.” If we don’t have the intellectual tools to discriminate against poor opinions and ideas, and debate them, then the pessimistic view of humanity, from the German philosophers and orthodox Roman Catholics may portend to be correct. If so, mankind is doomed to the tragic decline and slide over the abyss into tyrannical hell. We need wise men courageous enough to stand up!
I must respectfully disagree, with your thesis, well put in your essay's last paragraph, part of which says “A true conservative education is fundamentally incompatible with intellectual diversity.” Diversity must also be able to judge good ideas and poor ideas and own the ability to debate. To deny any ability to discriminate poor or uneducated or immoral opinions is the OPPOSITE OF INTELLECT. A true classical, liberal education provides that ability, but we need bravery and virtue and I dare say, pessimistically, there is little of any to be found. But, optimistically it must be our goal!
Comment by WeThePeople | December 26, 2006
I believe its necessary to say that the Left's code word for irrationality is "diversity" which is the opposite of diverse and has been successful at eliminating anything but the drivel of their opinions. Today's academia is neither intellectually rational nor diverse; here we would probably agree.
Comment by WeThePeople | December 26, 2006