Intellectual diversity?

David Brooks, a politically conservative columnist for the New York Times, wrote a very provocative column this week (9/12/04) about the difference between Democrats and Republicans. The column focuses on the difference between the way Democrats and Republicans think. Folks who lean to the right in America, according to Brooks, are "spreadsheet people," while the left leaners (likely Democrats) are "paragraph people."

The column raises important questions about intellectual diversity in general, and whether or not professors in America are intellectually homogenous in particular. Complaints about the political liberalism of college professors, journalists, lawyers, teachers, writers, etc, are very common. A hurdle to refuting such complaints is that this phenomenon is clearly true. All of these professions are dominated by what Brooks calls "paragraph people." My point here is to question an assumption made by Brooks, and by some university professors even, that the dominance of political liberalism among "paragraph people," especially professors, is evidence of a lack of "intellectual" diversity. I believe this sleight of hand, equating political and intellectual diversity, has been allowed to flourish at great cost to the political debate in America.

Brooks writes, "Academics have had such an impact on the Democratic donor base because there is less intellectual diversity in academia than in any other profession."

As I read this I wondered how a reasonable person could believe that universities are intellectually homogenous places. Considering that universities are home to people who have dedicated their lives and careers to the systematic study of virtually everything, I find Brooks' confident assertion absurd. The idea that people trained in every discipline do not bring very diverse, distinct, and valuable perspectives to bear on inter-disciplinary issues and larger questions significant to the broader community is NUTS! (Pardon the technical academic jargon) Unfortunately, it is also a notion that a large chunk of the American public seems to believe.

By simply assuming that political liberalism is a discrete intellectual perspective, American conservative activists and partisans have been able to neutralize the impact of the professoriate on politics. When you consider how important Americans consistently say education is, it is astounding how many of us actually believe that the most highly educated among us are thereby incapable of offering objective and productive
input on political questions.

Several questions deserve more honest (and dare I say scholarly) scrutiny. Why is political liberalism so dominant among the nation's most highly educated citizens? Does advanced formal education really produce deterioration in one’s commonsense? What is it about modern political conservatism that repels the vast majority scholars in America? Is political liberalism more consistent with the pursuit of truth based on reason? Is political conservatism in America hostile to scientific inquiry? Does political liberalism lead to an intellectually narrow view of the world? Is there intellectual diversity among liberals? Is there intellectual diversity among conservatives?

America deserves better than the intellectual class warfare that the right has very effectively waged in this country over the last 30-40 years. While condemning the economic class warfare of New Deal Democrats, Republicans have masterfully shifted the ire of average Americans from economic elites to intellectual elites. Both groups are largely foreign to average Americans, which makes them easier to demonize.

It's time for straight talk about what divides us politically in America.